MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979103454 · doi:10.1109/iccchina.2019.8855897

A High Accuracy Integrated Bagging-Fuzzy-GBDT Prediction Algorithm for Heart Disease Diagnosis

2019· article· en· W2979103454 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoming Yuan, Xue Wang, Jianchao Han, Jiemin Liu, Haiyan Chen, Kuan Zhang, Qiang Ye

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBoosting (machine learning)Fuzzy logicMachine learningArtificial intelligenceHeart diseaseComputational intelligenceData miningDecision treeAlgorithmPrecision and recallMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Associated with high morbidity and mortality, heart disease has become a severe threat to peoples health throughout the world. The recent development of Internet of Things (IoT) and machine learning in e-healthcare have contributed to the monitoring, prediction and diagnosis of heart disease. Particularly, the heart disease prediction can effectively facilitate disease prevention, diagnosis and timely treatment. However, traditional prediction models are weak in accuracy and generalization. In this paper, we propose a high accuracy integrated prediction algorithm for heart disease diagnosis. The fuzzy logic and Bootstrap Aggregating (Bagging) algorithm based on Gradient Boosting Decision Tree (GBDT) algorithm are combined to process heart disease data and generate multiple weak classifiers. At first, we integrate the fuzzy logic with GBDT to reduce the complexity of data. Moreover, we develop the Fuzzy-GBDT model integrated Bagging algorithm to avoid the interference of sensitive points and achieve partial parallelism. The simulation results show the proposed Fuzzy-Bagging-GBDT algorithm improves the accuracy and recall of heart disease prediction compared with GBDT.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.658
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.353 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207