ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Web-based cardiovascular disease risk prediction using machine learning.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the foremost contributor to global illness and death, underscoring the critical need for effective tools that can predict risk at early stages to support preventive care and timely clinical decisions. With the growing complexity of healthcare data, machine learning has shown considerable promise in extracting insights that enhance medical decision-making. Nonetheless, the effectiveness and clarity of machine learning models largely rely on the relevance and quality of input features. In this work, we explored and compared four feature-selection strategies-Pearson correlation + Chi-squared test, Alternating Decision Tree (ADT)-based scoring, Cross-Validated Feature Evaluation (CVFE), and Hypergraph-Based Feature Evaluation (HFE)-to identify the most predictive factors for CVD risk. Our analysis utilized data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), administered by the National Center for Health Statistics under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), encompassing demographic, clinical, laboratory, and survey data collected across the U.S. from August 2021 through August 2023. Distinct sets of features obtained through these selection techniques were used to develop random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) models, which were then assessed for predictive effectiveness. To improve clarity and understanding of model decision-making, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) was used to interpret feature contributions in the top-performing model. Among the evaluated methods, the HFE approach combined with SVM achieved the highest overall accuracy (82.84%) and AUC (0.9027), outperforming both classical and alternative strategies. The most influential predictors included age, total cholesterol, history of high blood pressure, use of cholesterol-lowering medication, recent prescription medication use, lifetime smoking history, family income-to-poverty ratio, gender, educational attainment, and red cell distribution width. The web application, accessible at https://shiny.tricities.wsu.edu/cvdr-prediction/, presents predictive results, probability scores, and SHAP plots generated from the model trained using the feature set selected by the hypergraph-based approach. This study highlights the importance of strategic feature selection in refining predictive accuracy and interpretability, offering a practical data-driven approach that could aid clinicians in evaluating cardiovascular risk and tailoring preventive care.
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.