ArticleScientific reports2025
Cardiovascular risk prediction via ensemble machine learning and oversampling methods.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Applications of artificial intelligence in cardiovascular risk detection and prediction among adults with obesity: a scoping review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular diseases are a leading cause of global mortality, with hypertension, obesity, and other factors contributing significantly to risk. Artificial Intelligence has emerged as a valuable tool for early detection, offering predictive models that outperform traditional methods. This study analyzed a dataset of 709 individuals from Ecuador, including demographic and clinical variables, to estimate cardiovascular risk. During preprocessing, records with missing values and duplicates were removed, and highly correlated variables were excluded to reduce multicollinearity and prevent overfitting. The performance of several machine learning algorithms–including Decision Trees, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, Extreme Gradient Boosting, LightGBM, Extra Trees, AdaBoost, and Bagging–was compared, while addressing class imbalance using SMOTE and a hybrid ROS–SMOTE approach. Gradient Boosting with the hybrid technique achieved the best performance, obtaining an accuracy of 0.87, a precision of 0.81, a recall of 0.74, and an F1-score of 0.75. Its superior performance is attributed to its sequential error correction mechanism and integrated regularization strategies, which effectively reduce overfitting and improve generalization in noisy or imbalanced datasets. These findings demonstrate the potential of AI-based models to improve early detection and management of cardiovascular disease, highlighting the importance of anthropometric, clinical, and blood pressure variables in predicting cardiovascular risk.
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.