Heuristic Weight Initialization for Diagnosing Heart Diseases Using Feature Ranking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has had a broad impact on life to solve various tasks. Building AI models and integrating them with modern technologies is a central challenge for researchers. These technologies include wearables and implants in living beings, and their use is known as human augmentation, using technology to enhance human abilities. Combining human augmentation with artificial intelligence (AI), especially after the recent successes of the latter, is the most significant advancement in their applicability. In the first section, we briefly introduce these modern applications in health care and examples of their use cases. Then, we present a computationally efficient AI-driven method to diagnose heart failure events by leveraging actual heart failure data. The classifier model is designed without conventional models such as gradient descent. Instead, a heuristic is used to discover the optimal parameters of a linear model. An analysis of the proposed model shows that it achieves an accuracy of 84% and an F1 score of 0.72 with only one feature. With five features for diagnosis, the accuracy achieved is 83%, and the F1 score is 0.74. Moreover, the model is flexible, allowing experts to determine which variables are more important than others when implementing diagnostic 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.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".