ArticleScientific reports2026
A multi-view autoencoder architecture with self-adaptive feature recalibration and confidence-aware ensemble for heart disease classification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart disease continues to pose a major challenge to global health, underscoring the need for early, accurate prediction models. In this study, we introduce a new hybrid intelligent framework designed to significantly improve heart disease classification. Our approach combines multi-view deep feature extraction, self-adaptive feature recalibration, and dynamic ensemble learning to deliver more reliable predictions. The process begins with a multi-view autoencoder that separately captures latent features from demographic, clinical, and diagnostic data. This separation preserves the unique information each data type offers, leading to richer and more meaningful feature representations. Next, we apply a self-adaptive feature recalibration mechanism that assigns importance weights to each feature based on the data itself. This ensures that features with stronger clinical relevance play a greater role in the model's decision-making. Finally, we integrate a confidence-aware ensemble of three powerful classifiers-Extra Trees, Random Forest, and XGBoost. This ensemble dynamically adjusts the influence of each model depending on how confident they are at the instance level. We tested the proposed framework across five well-known heart disease datasets, using 10-fold cross-validation to ensure robustness. The results are promising: the model achieved an accuracy of 92.45%, sensitivity of 93.2%, specificity of 91.4%, and an F1-score of 91.4%. It consistently outperformed traditional machine learning methods, recent hybrid ensembles, and even state-of-the-art deep learning models like TabNet, SAINT, NODE, and TabTransformer. Statistical significance was confirmed via Friedman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (p < 0.001). To support interpretability, we used SHAP analysis, which highlighted key medical predictors such as chest pain type, number of major vessels, and ST depression. In summary, our results demonstrate that combining multi-view representation learning with self-adaptive feature recalibration and dynamic ensemble strategies leads to a highly effective, interpretable, and clinically relevant tool for early heart disease prediction. This framework holds strong promise for integration into smart clinical decision support systems, with future research aimed at validating it on larger and more diverse patient populations. Not applicable. This research does not involve a clinical trial or any prospective human experimentation.
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.