Evaluative Study of Machine Learning Classifiers in Predicting Heart Failure: A Focus on Imbalanced Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart disease persistently remains a paramount health concern globally, necessitating early and precise detection for effective therapeutic intervention, particularly within the realm of cardiology.This study proposes a predictive model for heart failure, utilizing six distinct machine learning classification algorithms-Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD), Logistic Regression (LR), Decision Tree (DT), AdaBoost, Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Random Forest (RF)-and assesses their performance on an imbalanced heart failure clinical record dataset obtained from Kaggle.Consisting of 299 observations, the dataset comprises 32.11% of instances resulting in death and 67.89% marking recovery or survival, thereby presenting a significant imbalance.This imbalance potentially contributes to a suboptimal prediction of the non-death instances.To address this issue, the Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) is employed.The performance of each classifier is evaluated using measures such as accuracy, precision, recall, and F-score.Experiments are conducted on the complete feature set and a selected subset of features, focusing particularly on highly correlated features.The results from these experiments are then juxtaposed with those derived using the comprehensive feature set.The outcome of these comparative analyses reveals superior performance by the RF algorithm over other tree-based and statistical-based models, thereby achieving enhanced accuracy.This study, therefore, presents an in-depth evaluation of machine learning algorithms in predicting heart disease, contributing significantly to the ongoing research in cardiology and machine learning.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".