MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Identifying High Risk of Atherosclerosis Using Deep Learning and Ensemble Learning

2021· article· en· W3185193092 on OpenAlexaff
Hedieh Hashem Olhosseiny, Mohammadsalar Mirzaloo, Miodrag Bolić, Hilmi R. Dajani, Voicu Groza, Masayoshi Yoshida

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningDeep learningEnsemble learningDiseaseComputer scienceStroke (engine)MedicineInternal medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atherosclerosis refers to the buildup of plaque on the artery walls. As the disease advances in its further stages, its burden could lead to stroke or heart attack. Atherosclerosis develops gradually, and mild stages of the condition are usually symptomless. Diagnosing patients in their early stages of the disease can facilitate timely clinical interventions enhancing patient's quality of life by altering the course of the disease. The work presented in this paper is focused on classifying patients who are at high risk of Atherosclerosis using simple diagnosis tools available in every clinic. The final system is a prescreening tool providing the medical practitioners with recommendations regarding the disease. High risk patients can be referred to a cardiologist for further assessments. A dataset of 44 patients was collected including 17 low-risk and 27 high-risk patients. Two different approaches were taken, 1. using deep learning and time series data (ECG signals) 2. using traditional machine learning algorithms and tabular data. In the first approach, a Conv-GRU model was trained using ECG signals collected from patients. This method resulted in an average accuracy of 77% which was computed over 4 folds using cross validation. In the second approach, Stacking, an ensemble learning technique in which the final prediction is obtained by combining the prediction of different machine learning models trained on several attributes readily collected in the clinic, was used. An average accuracy of 81% was achieved using this method.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.265 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207