Risk Assessment of Cardiovascular Diseases Using kNN and Decision Tree Classifier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As per the information provided by WHO, most of the people die from the cardiovascular disease. In 2019, almost 32% of the global deaths were due to cardiovascular diseases, out of which 85% were because of heart attacks and strokes. Hence, it is very important to predict the chances and risk of cardiovascular disease event, to prevent any damage in future. Cardiovascular diseases are the disorders of blood vessels supplying blood to heart, brain and different parts of the body. There are different causes of cardiovascular diseases, which can be quantified with the help of different features and with supporting attributes like age of the person, any diseases like diabetes, blood pressure etc., the risk of the cardiovascular disease can be assessed to prevent the further losses. Machine learning approach is very useful in these circumstances, where quantified data values are available in terms of data set. Machine learning techniques can be used to find the risk of cardiovascular disease. Here, we are proposing to use the two machine learning classifiers such as kNN and decision tree. kNN helps us to find the possibility of cardiovascular disease and decision tree helps us to classify the type of the cardiovascular disease with the risk involved. This approach is very useful, as decision tree is one of the most accurate classifiers, which also helps us to identify the specific cardiovascular disease that can be the future event based on feature values. This proposed methodology is justified with proper research gap stating the important of the proposed architecture and implementation results, which gives effective way for assessing the risk of cardiovascular disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".