Machine Learning–Based Risk Factor Analysis and Prediction Model Construction for the Occurrence of Chronic Heart Failure: Health Ecologic Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a serious threat to human health, with high morbidity and mortality rates, imposing a heavy burden on the health care system and society. With the abundance of medical data and the rapid development of machine learning (ML) technologies, new opportunities are provided for in-depth investigation of the mechanisms of CHF and the construction of predictive models. The introduction of health ecology research methodology enables a comprehensive dissection of CHF risk factors from a wider range of environmental, social, and individual factors. This not only helps to identify high-risk groups at an early stage but also provides a scientific basis for the development of precise prevention and intervention strategies. Objective This study aims to use ML to construct a predictive model of the risk of occurrence of CHF and analyze the risk of CHF from a health ecology perspective. Methods This study sourced data from the Jackson Heart Study database. Stringent data preprocessing procedures were implemented, which included meticulous management of missing values and the standardization of data. Principal component analysis and random forest (RF) were used as feature selection techniques. Subsequently, several ML models, namely decision tree, RF, extreme gradient boosting, adaptive boosting (AdaBoost), support vector machine, naive Bayes model, multilayer perceptron, and bootstrap forest, were constructed, and their performance was evaluated. The effectiveness of the models was validated through internal validation using a 10-fold cross-validation approach on the training and validation sets. In addition, the performance metrics of each model, including accuracy, precision, sensitivity, F1-score, and area under the curve (AUC), were compared. After selecting the best model, we used hyperparameter optimization to construct a better model. Results RF-selected features (21 in total) had an average root mean square error of 0.30, outperforming principal component analysis. Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique and Edited Nearest Neighbors showed better accuracy in data balancing. The AdaBoost model was most effective with an AUC of 0.86, accuracy of 75.30%, precision of 0.86, sensitivity of 0.69, and F1-score of 0.76. Validation on the training and validation sets through 10-fold cross-validation gave an AUC of 0.97, an accuracy of 91.27%, a precision of 0.94, a sensitivity of 0.92, and an F1-score of 0.94. After random search processing, the accuracy and AUC of AdaBoost improved. Its accuracy was 77.68% and its AUC was 0.86. Conclusions This study offered insights into CHF risk prediction. Future research should focus on prospective studies, diverse data, advanced techniques, longitudinal studies, and exploring factor interactions for better CHF prevention and management.
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 | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".