ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Enhancing clinically cardiovascular machine learning model for risk prediction via sample augmentation.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Small sample dataset and heterogeneous distributions limit the robustness and implementability of machine learning models for structured clinical data. To evaluate the value of moderate data augmentation for cardiovascular risk modeling and propose an interpretable and deployable solution within a "continuous risk to thresholding" framework. Methods: The heart disease classification dataset was randomly divided into training and validation sets with an 8:2 ratio. Constrained feature space augmentation was performed within the training set, and the effects of four thresholds (0×, 1×, 2×, and 3×) on support vector regression (SVR), random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM), and multi-layer perceptron (MLP) were compared. Continuous risk scores were evaluated using mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), and R Results: 2 × augmentation achieved the favorable compromise between error (reduced MAE and RMSE) and goodness of fit (increased R Conclusion: Combining SHAP/PDP's multi-layered interpretation and thresholding approach, this study provides a reusable multiplication guidance and risk stratification scheme, providing a methodological basis for deploying interpretable cardiovascular risk models.
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.