Why the study?
With the increasing number of heart disease patients, establishing a risk assessment model based on risk factors is needed for early diagnosis and timely treatment of high-risk populations.
Do machine learning algorithms accurately identify chronic heart disease in population survey data?
Do machine learning algorithms accurately identify chronic heart disease in population survey data?
Machine learning models, particularly SVM, can effectively identify chronic heart disease using population survey data, with low-dose aspirin use and chest pain being key predictive variables.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ML models may aid CHD identification in surveys but should not change practice; leaves open prospective validation.
OBJECTIVE: The number of heart disease patients is increasing. Establishing a risk assessment model for chronic heart disease (CHD) based on risk factors is beneficial for early diagnosis and timely treatment of high-risk populations. METHODS: Four machine learning models, including logistic regression, support vector machines (SVM), random forests, and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), were used to evaluate the CHD among 14 971 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2011 to 2018. The area under the receiver-operator curve (AUC) is the indicator that we evaluate the model. RESULTS: In four kinds of models, SVM has the best classification performance (AUC = 0.898), and the AUC value of logistic regression and random forest were 0.895 and 0.894, respectively. Although XGBoost performed the worst with an AUC value of 0.891. There was no significant difference among the four algorithms. In the importance analysis of variables, the three most important variables were taking low-dose aspirin, chest pain or discomfort, and total amount of dietary supplements taken. CONCLUSION: All four machine learning classifiers can identify the occurrence of CHD based on population survey data. We also determined the contribution of variables in the prediction, which can further explore their effectiveness in actual clinical data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: