MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385693906 · doi:10.1155/2023/6442756

Towards Diagnostic Aided Systems in Coronary Artery Disease Detection: A Comprehensive Multiview Survey of the State of the Art

2023· article· en· W4385693906 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Intelligent Systems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCADSupport vector machineComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceField (mathematics)Random forestArtificial neural networkCoronary artery diseaseFeature extractionData miningData extractionPattern recognition (psychology)MedicineMEDLINEMathematicsInternal medicineEngineering drawing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction . Coronary artery disease (CAD) is one of the main causes of death all over the world. One way to reduce the mortality rate from CAD is to predict its risk and take effective interventions. The use of machine learning‐ (ML‐) based methods is an effective method for predicting CAD‐induced death, which is why many studies in this field have been conducted in recent years. Thus, this study aimed to review published studies on artificial intelligence classification algorithms in CAD detection and diagnosis. Methods . This study systematically reviewed the most cutting‐edge techniques for analyzing clinical and paraclinical data to quickly diagnose CAD. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases using a combination of related keywords. A data extraction form was used to collect data after selecting the articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The content analysis method was used to analyze the data, and based on the study’s objectives, the results are presented in tables and figures. Results . Our search in three prevalent databases resulted in 15689 studies, of which 54 were included to be reviewed for data analysis. Most studies used laboratory and demographic data classification and have shown desirable results. In general, three ML methods (traditional ML, DL/NN, and ensemble) were used. Among the algorithms used, random forest (RF), linear regression (LR), neural networks (NNs), support vector machine (SVM), and K‐nearest networks (KNNs) have the most applications in the field of code recognition. Conclusion . The findings of this study show that these models based on different ML methods were successful despite the lack of a benchmark for comparing and analyzing ML features, methods, and algorithms in CAD diagnosis. Many of these models performed better in their analyses of CAD features as a result of a closer look. In the near future, clinical specialists can use ML‐based models as a powerful tool for diagnosing CAD more quickly and precisely by looking at its design’s technical facets. Among its incredible outcomes are decreased diagnostic errors, diagnostic time, and needless invasive diagnostic tests, all of which typically result in decreases in diagnostic expenses for healthcare systems.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.265 · 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