MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206222922 · doi:10.1109/tim.2021.3139693

Ensemble Machine Learning and Its Validation for Prediction of Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndrome Using Focused Carotid Ultrasound

2021· article· en· W4206222922 on OpenAlexaff
Ankush D. Jamthikar, Deep Gupta, Laura E. Mantella, Luca Saba, Amer M. Johri, Jasjit S. Suri

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCADCoronary artery diseaseAcute coronary syndromeMachine learningMedicineEnsemble learningTest setFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceUltrasoundInternal medicineCardiologyComputer scienceRadiologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study is to demonstrate the effectiveness of ensemble-learning-driven machine learning (EML) algorithms over the conventional ML (CML) algorithms in predicting cardiovascular events (CVEs) such as coronary artery disease (CAD) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Furthermore, this study demonstrates the improvement in overall CVE prediction by including carotid ultrasound image phenotypes in the feature set. The methodology consisted of collecting and amalgamating 24 risk predictors along with coronary angiography as the gold standard. We further hypothesize that for such a fused set of predictors, EML systems can perform better compared with CML systems. The EML system design consisted of risk predictors for each of 459 participants undergoing baseline characteristics and independent K10-based training model generation based on three sets of algorithms: seven CML, three homogeneous ensemble ML (EML-homo), and five heterogeneous ensemble ML (EML-hetro). These training models were then applied to the test patients to predict CAD and ACS. As part of the performance, the AUC for EML-homo improved over CML by 4.3% for CAD and 1.1% for ACS, respectively. Similarly, the AUC for EML-hetro improved over CML by 3.23% for CAD and 2.11% for ACS, respectively. The proposed EML-based system was validated against the two validation databases consisting of 303 and 522 participants for CAD and ACS. We thus conclude that the EML-based algorithms are better in predicting CAD and ACS, compared with CML, proving our hypothesis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

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

Citations37
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207