MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408121597 · doi:10.6000/1929-6029.2025.14.11

Chronic kidney Disease Classification through Hybrid Feature Selection and Ensemble Deep Learning

2025· article· en· W4408121597 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
N. Yogesh, Purohit Shrinivasacharya, Nagaraj Naik, B. Vikranth

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceFeature selectionEnsemble learningComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Kidney diseasePattern recognition (psychology)Selection (genetic algorithm)Machine learningMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diagnosing and treating at-risk patients for chronic kidney disease (CKD) relies heavily on accurately classifying the disease. The use of deep learning models in healthcare research is receiving much interest due to recent developments in the field. CKD has many features; however, only some features contribute weightage for the classification task. Therefore, it is required to eliminate the irrelevant feature before applying the classification task. This paper proposed a hybrid feature selection method by combining the two feature selection techniques: the Boruta and the Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) method. The features are ranked according to their importance for CKD classification using the Boruta algorithm and refined feature set using the RFE, which recursively eliminates the least important features. The hybrid feature selection method removes the feature with a low recursive score. Later, selected features are given input to the proposed ensemble deep learning method for classification. The experimental ensemble deep learning model with feature selection is compared to Support Vector Machine (SVM), Logistic Regression (LR), and Random Forest (RF) models with and without feature selection. When feature selection is used, the ensemble model improves accuracy by 2%. Experimental results found that these features, age, pus cell clumps, bacteria, and coronary artery disease, do not contribute much to accurate classification tasks. Accuracy, precision, and recall are used to evaluate the ensemble deep learning model.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.421 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical ResearchSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207