ArticleJournal of cardiovascular translational research2026
Cross-cohort Generalization for Heart Disease Prediction with Explainable AI.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular translational research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We propose CardioTransfer-X, a cross-cohort transfer learning framework within a related clinical benchmark family for tabular CVD risk prediction that yields performance comparable to training from scratch while preserving transparency. Predictive models are pre-trained on a composite multi-hospital heart disease dataset to learn generalized risk patterns, then fine-tuned on the smaller, distributionally distinct Cleveland Heart Disease dataset. To mitigate dataset shift and class imbalance, we introduce a stability-aware, correlation-based feature selection strategy and apply SMOTE only during training. CardioTransfer-X is instantiated with XGBoost, TabNet, and a MLP, enabling systematic comparison across tree-based and neural models. SHAP-based explanations provide global interpretability across architectures, with consistent feature importance rankings before and after fine-tuning. Fine-tuned XGBoost achieves 80.65±4.08% accuracy and 81.74±3.71% F1-score on the Cleveland dataset while maintaining stable source-domain performance, showing performance competitive with training from scratch, while shifting the decision boundary toward higher sensitivity and maintaining clinically meaningful feature attributions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42776352What 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.