ArticleCardiology research and practice2026
Comparing the Performances of Support Vector Machines and Artificial Neural Networks for Predicting Coronary Artery Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cardiology research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparing the Performances of Support Vector Machines and Artificial Neural Networks for Predicting Coronary Artery Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is recognized as an inflammatory condition and remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Cardiovascular disease (CVD), more broadly, is a major contributor to global death and disability. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of various noninvasive techniques for detecting CAD. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted involving 758 participants, including 508 patients diagnosed with CAD and 250 without the disease. The diagnostic performance of two machine learning models-artificial neural networks (ANNs) and support vector machines (SVMs)-was evaluated. The classification models were assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy. Results: The study included a total of 758 participants. Among them, 250 individuals (33.6% male and 66.4% female) were diagnosed as non-CAD cases, while 508 participants (64% male, 36% female) were identified as having CAD. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for CAD prediction was 0.752 (95% CI: 0.682-0.823) using the ANN model and 0.793 (95% CI: 0.733-0.853) using the SVM model. A statistically significant difference was observed between the performance of the two models in predicting CAD ( Conclusions: SVMs demonstrated superior performance compared to ANNs in predicting the risk of CAD using simple clinical predictors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.