MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200513061 · doi:10.18280/isi.260604

Framework Two-Tier Feature Selection on the Intelligence System Model for Detecting Coronary Heart Disease

2021· article· en· W4200513061 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wiharto Wiharto, Esti Suryani, Sigit Setyawan

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBadan Riset dan Inovasi Nasional
KeywordsFeature selectionComputer scienceNormalization (sociology)Artificial intelligenceContext (archaeology)Feature (linguistics)Selection (genetic algorithm)Machine learningPredictive modellingData miningPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coronary heart disease is a non-communicable disease with high mortality. A good action to anticipate this is to do prevention, namely by carrying out a healthy lifestyle and routine early examinations. Early detection of coronary heart disease requires a number of examinations, such as demographics, ECG, laboratory, symptoms, and even angiography. The number of inspection parameters in the context of early detection will have an impact on the time and costs that must be incurred. Selection of the right and important inspection parameters will save time and costs. This study proposes an intelligence system model for the detection of coronary heart disease by using a minimal examination attribute, with performance in the good category. This research method is divided into a number of stages, namely data normalization, feature selection, classification, and performance analysis. Feature selection uses a Two-tier feature selection framework consisting of correlation-based filters and wrappers. The system model is tested using a number of datasets, and classification algorithms. The test results show that the proposed two-tier feature selection framework is able to reduce the highest attribute of 73.51% in the z-Alizadeh Sani dataset. The performance of the system using the bagging-PART algorithm is able to provide the best performance with parameters area under the curve (AUC) 95.4%, sensitivity 95.9% while accuracy is 94.1%. Referring to the AUC value, the proposed system model is included in the good category.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIngénierie des systèmes d informationSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207