ArticlePloS one2026
Comparative analysis of machine learning techniques for cardiovascular disease prediction.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesEarly and accurate prediction of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is fundamental for reducing morbidity and mortality. Machine learning (ML) algorithms provide a data-driven, actionable foundation to strengthen clinical decision-making and enable more precise risk stratification. The purpose of this study is to identify the most significant risk factors for CVD and to compare the predictive performance of eight machine learning algorithms. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study utilizes the Cardiovascular Disease dataset, an open-access resource from the Kaggle repository. It applies 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-fold cross-validation (CV) to evaluate the performance of Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine (SVM), XGBoost, LogitBoost, Gradient Boosting, and LightGBM. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1-score, false discovery rate (FDR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) are used to evaluate the performance of the algorithms. The selection and ranking of relevant features are achieved through multiple methodologies, including Boruta, Regularized Random Forest, Recursive Feature Elimination, and LASSO.
resultsAll clinical and demographic characteristics except gender show significant differences between the CVD and non-CVD groups (p-values <0.001). While 5-fold cross-validation yields somewhat better metrics for most techniques, model performance remains stable across folds. With the best AUC of 0.800 (95% CI: 0.792-0.807) and balanced F1-score(0.77), LightGBM produces the most balanced findings while retaining a high sensitivity (0.791) under both 5-fold and 20-fold CV. Despite having low sensitivity (0.628), LogitBoost achieves the best accuracy (0.814) and specificity (0.911) in 20-fold CV. Considering all evaluation metrics, particularly AUC and sensitivity, LightGBM with 5-fold cross-validation is selected as the optimal model for CVD prediction. Gain analysis indicates that systolic blood pressure is the primary contributor, and feature selection techniques repeatedly identified systolic blood pressure, age, and cholesterol levels as prominent predictors.
conclusionLightGBM demonstrates modestly superior, more balanced performance compared to the other evaluated algorithms in this dataset. While the performance (AUC = 0.800) suggests potential utility as a decision support tool, external validation is needed before clinical deployment. The model is not yet ready for standalone clinical use.
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.