Machine Learning‐Based Model to Predict Heart Disease in Early Stage Employing Different Feature Selection Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost 17.9 million people are losing their lives due to cardiovascular disease, which is 32% of total death throughout the world. It is a global concern nowadays. However, it is a matter of joy that the mortality rate due to heart disease can be reduced by early treatment, for which early‐stage detection is a crucial issue. This study is aimed at building a potential machine learning model to predict heart disease in early stage employing several feature selection techniques to identify significant features. Three different approaches were applied for feature selection such as chi‐square, ANOVA, and mutual information, and the selected feature subsets were denoted as SF1, SF2, and SF3, respectively. Then, six different machine learning models such as logistic regression (C1), support vector machine (C2), K‐nearest neighbor (C3), random forest (C4), Naive Bayes (C5), and decision tree (C6) were applied to find the most optimistic model along with the best‐fit feature subset. Finally, we found that random forest provided the most optimistic performance for SF3 feature subsets with 94.51% accuracy, 94.87% sensitivity, 94.23% specificity, 94.95 area under ROC curve (AURC), and 0.31 log loss. The performance of the applied model along with selected features indicates that the proposed model is highly potential for clinical use to predict heart disease in the early stages with low cost and less time.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".