ArticlePloS one2025
Reducing bias in coronary heart disease prediction using Smote-ENN and PCA.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An explainable machine learning approach to predicting carbapenem resistance inFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a major cardiovascular disorder that poses significant threats to global health and is increasingly affecting younger populations. Its treatment and prevention face challenges such as high costs, prolonged recovery periods, and limited efficacy of traditional methods. Additionally, the complexity of diagnostic indicators and the global shortage of medical professionals further complicate accurate diagnosis. This study employs machine learning techniques to analyze CHD-related pathogenic factors and proposes an efficient diagnostic and predictive framework. To address the data imbalance issue, SMOTE-ENN is utilized, and five machine learning algorithms-Decision Trees, KNN, SVM, XGBoost, and Random Forest-are applied for classification tasks. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Grid Search are used to optimize the models, with evaluation metrics including accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and AUC. According to the random forest model's optimization experiment, the initial unbalanced data's accuracy was 85.26%, and the F1-score was 12.58%. The accuracy increased to 92.16% and the F1-score reached 93.85% after using SMOTE-ENN for data balancing, which is an increase of 6.90% and 81.27%, respectively; the model accuracy increased to 97.91% and the F1-score increased to 97.88% after adding PCA feature dimensionality reduction processing, which is an increase of 5.75% and 4.03%, respectively, compared with the SMOTE-ENN stage. This indicates that combining data balancing and feature dimensionality reduction techniques significantly improves model accuracy and makes the random forest model the best model. This study provides an efficient diagnostic tool for CHD, alleviates the challenges posed by limited medical resources, and offers a scientific foundation for precise prevention and intervention strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.