Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence Models for Cardiovascular Disease Prediction: Network Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart failure is the most common cause of death in both males and females around the world. Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), in particular, are the main cause of death worldwide, accounting for 30% of all fatalities in the United States and 45% in Europe. Artificial intelligence (AI) approaches such as machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models are playing an important role in the advancement of heart failure therapy. The main objective of this study was to perform a network meta-analysis of patients with heart failure, stroke, hypertension, and diabetes by comparing the ML and DL models. A comprehensive search of five electronic databases was performed using ScienceDirect, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore. The search strategy was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The methodological quality of studies was assessed by following the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) guidelines. The random-effects network meta-analysis forest plot with categorical data was used, as were subgroups testing for all four types of treatments and calculating odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Pooled network forest, funnel plots, and the league table, which show the best algorithms for each outcome, were analyzed. Seventeen studies, with a total of 285,213 patients with CVDs, were included in the network meta-analysis. The statistical evidence indicated that the DL algorithms performed well in the prediction of heart failure with AUC of 0.843 and CI [0.840-0.845], while in the ML algorithm, the gradient boosting machine (GBM) achieved an average accuracy of 91.10% in predicting heart failure. An artificial neural network (ANN) performed well in the prediction of diabetes with an OR and CI of 0.0905 [0.0489; 0.1673]. Support vector machine (SVM) performed better for the prediction of stroke with OR and CI of 25.0801 [11.4824; 54.7803]. Random forest (RF) results performed well in the prediction of hypertension with OR and CI of 10.8527 [4.7434; 24.8305]. The findings of this work suggest that the DL models can effectively advance the prediction of and knowledge about heart failure, but there is a lack of literature regarding DL methods in the field of CVDs. As a result, more DL models should be applied in this field. To confirm our findings, more meta-analysis (e.g., Bayesian network) and thorough research with a larger number of patients are encouraged.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.055 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".