MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Comprehensive Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Algorithms for Predictive Diagnosis of Cardiovascular Disease

2025· article· W7117275416 on OpenAlexaff
Bhargav Rathod

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal For Multidisciplinary Research · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature selectionFeature (linguistics)DiseaseDecision support systemSupport vector machineSelection (genetic algorithm)Statistical classification

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This investigation addresses the primary research objectives of implementing and systematically comparing four foundational machine learning algorithms using a unified preprocessing, validation, and evaluation framework, analyzing feature importance patterns to identify clinically relevant predictors of cardiovascular disease, and establishing baseline performance benchmarks to support informed algorithm selection for clinical decision support 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.418
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal For Multidisciplinary ResearchSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207