MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324356412 · doi:10.47611/jsrhs.v11i3.3380

Predicting the Chance of Heart Attack with a Machine Learning Approach – Supervised Learning

2022· article· en· W4324356412 on OpenAlexaff
Lanting Zhu, Guillermo H. Goldsztein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Student Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCentennial College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningComputer scienceHeart rateBlood pressureSupervised learningField (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)Artificial neural networkMedicineInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning is a multidisciplinary field combining statistics, computer science and artificial intelligence. This research finds a way to use machine learning to predict the chance of heart attack based on information about the patient. There are 13 features collected about each patient which are age, sex, cholesterol, chest pain type, maximum heart rate achieved, resting blood pressure, resting electrocardiographic results, fasting blood sugar, exercise-induced angina, previous peak, slope, number of major blood vessels, and thalassemia. The information of all the patients is put into a dataset. The dataset is split into two sets, one for training and another for validation. A computer model using a supervised learning algorithm is developed and trained to predict the chance of heart attack. During training, the training set is used for training the model, while the validation set is used for evaluating the accuracy of the model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.488
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.094 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Student ResearchSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207