Influence of Class Imbalance and Resampling on Classification Accuracy of Chronic Kidney Disease Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic kidney disease is one of the leading causes of death around the world.Early detection of chronic kidney disease is crucial to the reduction of mortality caused as a result of the disease.Machine learning methods are recently becoming popular for the detection of chronic kidney disease.This study investigates the influence of resampling for chronic kidney disease detection using an imbalanced chronic kidney disease dataset.Choosing an optimal feature subset for medical datasets is important for improving the performance of data-driven predictive models.The influence of imbalanced class distribution on predictive models has become an increasingly important topic due to the recent advances in automatic decision-making processes and the continuous expansion in the volume of the data collected by medical institutions.To address the identified research gap, an experimental evaluation of synthetic minority oversampling and near miss undersampling technique was performed on a real-world chronic kidney disease dataset using several classification methods such as decision tree, random forest, K-nearest neighbor, adaptive boosting, and support vector machine.The results demonstrate that a number of variables, including performance metrics, classification algorithm, and dataset characteristics, influence the best class distribution.The study also offers useful information about resampling methods for an imbalanced classification problem which will help improve classification accuracy.
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 | 0.018 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".