Enhancing Cardiac Health Diagnoses Through Machine Learning Analysis of Phonocardiograms (PCG)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phonocardiograms (PCG) provide a non-invasive approach to analyzing heart sounds, making them vital for the early detection of cardiac issues. However, identifying the most effective machine learning models and feature extraction techniques for classifying PCG signals remains a challenge. This study aims to determine the most efficient and accurate combinations of machine learning models and feature engineering techniques for classifying PCG signals, with the overarching goal of enhancing diagnostic capabilities in heart health. Seven machine learning algorithms—Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, Naive Bayes, AdaBoost, XGBoost, and Support Vector Machine (SVM)—were evaluated. Feature extraction methods such as Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC), Linear Predictive Coding (LPC), and Short-Time Fourier Transform (STFT) were applied. Model performance was assessed using metrics including accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. The study found that advanced models like XGBoost and Random Forest, particularly when combined with STFT and MFCC features, consistently outperformed others. These models demonstrated superior accuracy and F1-scores, although they also introduced higher computational complexity. The results suggest that sophisticated model-feature combinations, particularly involving XGBoost and Random Forest with STFT and MFCC, hold promise for improving cardiac diagnostics. Received: 5 July 2024 | Revised: 18 October 2024 | Accepted: 23 January 2025 Conflicts of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to this work. Data Availability Statement Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study. Author Contribution Statement Popal Khan Popalzai: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation. Khurram Shehzad Khattak: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Anwar Mehmood Sohail: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. Zawar Hussain Khan: Methodology, Supervision.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it