ArticleCurrent health sciences journal
From Data to Decision: Interpretable and Reliable Heart Disease Risk Prediction.
Article in Current health sciences journal. 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
backgroundHeart disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, highlighting the need for accurate and clinically meaningful risk prediction tool. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective analysis was performed on a dataset of 918 patients with complete clinical information. The relationship between variables and disease presence were explored using correlation and dependence measure. To prediction was made using logistic regression, linear discriminant analysis, and generalized additive models. The performances were evaluated using cross-validation, discrimination metrics, and calibration analysis.
resultsFunctional and exercise-related variables, particularly Oldpeak, maximum heart rate, chest pain type, and ST slope showed the strongest correlation with disease presence. All models achieved AUROC values higher than 0.91. Logistic regression and generalized additive models performed similarly, with no statistically significant difference between them. Calibration analysis showed a good agreement between predicted and observed probabilities.
conclusionHeart disease prediction can be achieved with high accuracy using clinically accessible variables and interpretable models. Our findings suggest that simpler approaches remain suitable for practical clinical applications, while preserving transparency and usability.
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.