MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603008931 · doi:10.1109/csci.2016.0014

Machine Learning Application to Predict the Risk of Coronary Artery Atherosclerosis

2016· article· en· W2603008931 on OpenAlexaff
Soodeh Nikan, Femida Gwadry‐Sridhar, Michael Bauer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImputation (statistics)Computer scienceExpectation–maximization algorithmMaximizationArtificial intelligenceMissing dataCoronary artery diseasePattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningCardiologyMaximum likelihoodStatisticsMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of death in the world. In this research, we propose an algorithm based on the machine learning techniques to predict the risk of coronary artery atherosclerosis. A ridge expectation maximization imputation (REMI) technique is proposed to estimate the missing values in the atherosclerosis databases. A conditional likelihood maximization method is used to remove irrelevant attributes and reduce the size of feature space and thus improve the speed of the learning. The STULONG and UCI databases are used to evaluate the proposed algorithm. The performance of heart disease prediction for two classification models is analyzed and compared to previous work. Experimental results show the improved accuracy percentage of risk prediction of our proposed method compared to other works. The effect of missing value imputation on the prediction performance is also evaluated and the proposed REMI approach performs significantly better than conventional techniques.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207