An evolutionary machine learning algorithm for cardiovascular disease risk prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study developed a novel risk assessment model to predict the occurrence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. It uses a Genetic Algorithm (GA) to develop an easy-to-use model with high accuracy, calibrated based on the Isfahan Cohort Study (ICS) database. METHODS: The ICS was a population-based prospective cohort study of 6,504 healthy Iranian adults aged ≥ 35 years followed for incident CVD over ten years, from 2001 to 2010. To develop a risk score, the problem of predicting CVD was solved using a well-designed GA, and finally, the results were compared with classic machine learning (ML) and statistical methods. RESULTS: A number of risk scores such as the WHO, and PARS models were utilized as the baseline for comparison due to their similar chart-based models. The Framingham and PROCAM models were also applied to the dataset, with the area under a Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) equal to 0.633 and 0.683, respectively. However, the more complex Deep Learning model using a three-layered Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) performed best among the ML models, with an AUROC of 0.74, and the GA-based eXplanaible Persian Atherosclerotic CVD Risk Stratification (XPARS) showed higher performance compared to the statistical methods. XPARS with eight features showed an AUROC of 0.76, and the XPARS with four features, showed an AUROC of 0.72. CONCLUSION: A risk model that is extracted using GA substantially improves the prediction of CVD compared to conventional methods. It is clear, interpretable and can be a suitable replacement for conventional statistical methods.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".