BOO-ST and CBCEC: two novel hybrid machine learning methods aim to reduce the mortality of heart failure patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Machine learning (ML) approaches have shown potential as an early detection tool for improving patient outcomes. Enhancing the effectiveness and clinical applicability of the ML model necessitates training an efficient classifier with a diverse set of high-quality datasets. Hence, we proposed two novel hybrid ML methods ((a) consisting of Boosting, SMOTE, and Tomek links (BOO-ST); (b) combining the best-performing conventional classifier with ensemble classifiers (CBCEC)) to serve as an efficient early warning system for HF mortality. The BOO-ST was introduced to tackle the challenge of class imbalance, while CBCEC was responsible for training the processed and selected features derived from the Feature Importance (FI) and Information Gain (IG) feature selection techniques. We also conducted an explicit and intuitive comprehension to explore the impact of potential characteristics correlating with the fatality cases of HF. The experimental results demonstrated the proposed classifier CBCEC showcases a significant accuracy of 93.67% in terms of providing the early forecasting of HF mortality. Therefore, we can reveal that our proposed aspects (BOO-ST and CBCEC) can be able to play a crucial role in preventing the death rate of HF and reducing stress in the healthcare sector.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".