A Comprehensive Machine Learning Framework for Heart Disease Prediction: Performance Evaluation and Future Perspectives

Ali Azimi Lamir; Shiva Razzagzadeh; Zeynab Rezaei

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 25 references

A Comprehensive Machine Learning Framework for Heart Disease Prediction: Performance Evaluation and Future Perspectives

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A tuned Random Forest classifier is claimed to reach 91% accuracy and an F1-score of 0.89 for heart disease prediction on a 303-sample benchmark, beating Logistic Regression and KNN.

desk verdict Routine Cleveland heart-disease benchmark whose headline accuracy is contradicted by the paper's own tables and captions; no code or seeds, so nothing is reproducible. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09969 v1 pith:RVTBEFAU submitted 2025-05-15 cs.LG cs.AI

Ali Azimi Lamir , Shiva Razzagzadeh , Zeynab Rezaei This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AI

keywords heartdiseasepredictionRandomForestLogisticRegressionK-NearestNeighborshyperparametertuningClevelanddatasetclassificationmetricsclinicaldecisionsupport

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that a standard machine-learning pipeline—data cleaning, feature scaling, training three classifiers, and hyperparameter tuning—can predict the presence of heart disease from 14 clinical measurements. The headline claim is that a tuned Random Forest reaches 91% accuracy and an F1-score of 0.89, beating Logistic Regression and K-Nearest Neighbors. If that holds, it gives clinicians a cheap, interpretable screening tool that runs on routine hospital data. The paper also argues that Random Forest's ensemble structure is what lets it capture nonlinear feature interactions that linear and distance-based models miss, while cautioning that the 303-sample dataset limits generalizability.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Random Forest ensemble: a collection of decision trees whose individual predictions are averaged, which the paper uses to reduce variance and capture nonlinear feature interactions. Hyperparameter tuning via GridSearchCV and RandomizedSearchCV selects settings such as tree count and neighbor count, and the 80/20 train/test split with scaling fit only on the training set is meant to prevent leakage. The evaluation machinery—precision, recall, F1-score, and confusion matrix—is what supports the claim that performance is balanced across disease-positive and disease-negative patients.

What would settle it

Re-running the described pipeline on the public 303-sample heart-disease.csv with a fixed random seed and an 80/20 split would settle it: if the held-out test accuracy is below 90% or the F1-score is not around 0.89–0.91, the central claim collapses. Concretely, a test set of 61 samples with 54 correct predictions yields 88.5%, not 91%.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a Random Forest classifier, tuned with GridSearchCV and RandomizedSearchCV and evaluated on a single 80/20 split of the 303-sample heart-disease data, outperforms both Logistic Regression and KNN. The authors report an accuracy of 91% and an F1-score of 0.89 for Random Forest, with balanced precision and recall across the two classes. They attribute the result to the ensemble's ability to combine many decision trees, reduce overfitting, and handle complex feature relationships better than a linear model or a distance-based method. The same text later gives 89% accuracy and an F1-score of 0.91 in the conclusion, so the exact numbers are not fixed; the stable claim is that Random Forest gives the best overall balance of precision and recall among the three models tested.

Load-bearing premise

The headline result assumes that all reported metrics come from one clean, consistent evaluation split, but the paper itself gives different accuracy figures: 91% in the abstract, 89% in the conclusion, and a confusion matrix that implies roughly 88.5%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the 91% figure is reproducible, a tuned Random Forest can serve as a usable first-pass screening tool for heart disease from 14 routine clinical measurements.
Logistic Regression and KNN are presented as simpler alternatives that trade accuracy for interpretability or computational efficiency.
The paper's own limitation section implies the 303-sample result is a benchmark rather than a generalizable clinical model; larger and more diverse datasets are needed before deployment.
Hyperparameter tuning is treated as a necessary step, since untuned KNN and Random Forest do not reach the reported performance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the paper does not report a random seed, code, or exact hyperparameter values, the headline accuracy should be read as approximate until the protocol is reproduced; the manuscript's own conflicting numbers (91%, 89%, and a confusion matrix implying about 88.5%) reinforce this.
A straightforward extension would replace the single 80/20 split with repeated stratified k-fold cross-validation, which would give confidence intervals and almost certainly lower the point estimate.
The same pipeline applied to other public heart-disease datasets, such as the Hungarian or Statlog variants, would test whether Random Forest's advantage is dataset-specific or general.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a textbook three-classifier comparison on the UCI Cleveland heart-disease dataset, a benchmark that already exists in the literature (including Ref 10, which does random forest on the same data with 10-fold CV). The paper does not claim a new method or new features. What it does well: the preprocessing section explicitly says scaling and transformations were fitted on the training set only, which is the right way to avoid leakage. The related work is on-topic and the writing is clear about the dataset's small size and limited diversity as limitations.

The soft spots are not minor. The central claim—Random Forest at 91% accuracy and 0.89 F1—does not survive contact with the rest of the manuscript. The discussion says 91% accuracy and 0.91 F1; the conclusion says 89% accuracy and 0.91 F1; the classification report in §3.5 shows a confusion matrix with supports 29 and 32 (total 61) but the printed report has supports 31 and 33 (total 64), and the macro/weighted rows say support 63. The accuracy line says 0.91 but the confusion matrix as described gives 54/61 = 88.5%. Figure 4's caption says Logistic Regression achieved the highest accuracy, directly contradicting the text that says Random Forest outperformed the others. In short, there is no single evaluation run that supports the headline number.

Equally important, no code, no random seed, no hyperparameter values, and no data split details are given. The claim that hyperparameter tuning via GridSearchCV/RandomizedSearchCV was used cannot be checked, and model selection on a 303-sample dataset with a single 80/20 split is itself prone to overfitting the test set. These are not cosmetic concerns; the paper's only quantitative evidence is a number the manuscript itself refutes in several places.

The result, if true, would still be marginal. Random forest on Cleveland is not new, and 91% accuracy is in line with many prior reports. There is no external validation, no clinical endpoint, and no analysis of error cases.

Bottom line: this paper is for a reader who wants a brief survey of related work on this dataset plus a cautionary example of how reporting inconsistencies can undermine an otherwise simple benchmark. I would not bring it to reading group, and I would not cite it. It does not deserve a serious referee until the authors provide a single consistent evaluation protocol and the code or seed needed to reproduce it. Desk reject is the right call.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a machine-learning pipeline for binary heart-disease prediction on the Cleveland heart-disease dataset (303 instances, 14 attributes). Three classifiers are compared: Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors, and Random Forest, with hyperparameter tuning via GridSearchCV and RandomizedSearchCV and an 80/20 train-test split. The abstract claims Random Forest achieved the best performance with 91% accuracy and an F1-score of 0.89; the discussion restates 91% accuracy but an F1-score of 0.91; the conclusion states 89% accuracy and an F1-score of 0.91. Section 3.5 includes a confusion matrix, a classification report, and a feature-importance figure, and the paper concludes that Random Forest is the most suitable model, while acknowledging the small dataset size as a limitation and calling for external validation.

Significance. If the reported results were reliable, this would be a modest benchmark comparison on a well-known public dataset, providing limited new methodological insight. The paper's explicit recognition of the small dataset and its claim to have avoided data leakage by fitting scalers on the training set only are positive features. However, the significance is heavily undercut by internal contradictions in the headline metrics, an internally inconsistent classification report, and the absence of code, random seeds, or hyperparameter values. The central claim—that Random Forest achieves roughly 91% accuracy—is not supported by any single, well-defined evaluation run described in the manuscript, and the paper therefore does not currently provide a dependable empirical contribution.

major comments (5)

[Abstract; §4 Discussion; §5 Conclusion] The headline Random Forest results are inconsistent across the manuscript. The abstract reports accuracy 91% and F1-score 0.89; §4 reports accuracy 91% and F1-score 0.91; §5 reports accuracy 89% and F1-score 0.91. These numbers cannot all describe the same model evaluated on the same test split, yet no explanation or reconciliation is offered. Since the central conclusion rests on these metrics, the paper does not currently state its main result in a coherent way.
[§3.5 Evaluation and Results] The classification report and the confusion-matrix description are internally inconsistent. The report lists class supports 31 and 33, which sum to 64 test instances, while the accuracy line reports support 61 and the macro/weighted rows report support 63. For an 80/20 split of 303 samples, the test set has either 60 or 61 instances, so supports of 63 and 64 are impossible from a single split. The confusion-matrix text says 25 of 29 class-0 instances and 29 of 32 class-1 instances were correct, which corresponds to 54/61 = 88.5% accuracy, not the stated 91%. These contradictions prevent the reader from assigning any reported accuracy or F1-score to a concrete evaluation run.
[Figure 4 caption; §3.5 text] Figure 4's caption states that Logistic Regression achieved the highest accuracy and that Random Forest was second, directly contradicting the text in §3.5 and §4, which claim Random Forest outperformed the other models. This is not a minor wording issue: it reverses the paper's central comparative conclusion. As printed, the manuscript does not establish which model produced the headline results.
[§3.2 Data Preprocessing; §3.4 Model Training and Evaluation] The evaluation protocol is not reproducible from the information provided. The manuscript does not report the random seed used in train_test_split, the best hyperparameter values found by GridSearchCV or RandomizedSearchCV, or any code. Section 3.2 asserts that scaling was fitted on the training set only to prevent leakage, but nothing in the manuscript allows verification of this claim. Given the metric inconsistencies described above, the accuracy and F1 values cannot be traced to a well-defined procedure.
[§3.4 and §3.5] All performance claims are based on a single 80/20 split after hyperparameter tuning, with no repeated random splits, nested cross-validation, or variance estimates reported. On a dataset of 303 instances, selecting the best model after tuning on the same split risks overfitting the test set, and the reported single-point accuracy is not sufficient to support the general claim of clinical utility or model superiority.

minor comments (6)

[§3.1] The table title contains a typo: "Tabel 1" should be "Table 1."
[Figures 1 and 2] Figure 1 and Figure 2 appear to present identical scatter plots with identical captions, and the caption text under Figure 2 repeats the Figure 1 caption verbatim. The authors should either remove the duplicate or provide distinct figures and captions.
[Table 1] The description of the 'thal' feature lists "1: Normal, 3: Normal," which appears to be a typo; the standard encoding has distinct values for normal, fixed defect, and reversible defect.
[Figure 6 and surrounding text] Figure 6's caption identifies the confusion matrix as being for the K-Nearest Neighbors classifier, but the surrounding paragraph and classification report discuss the best-performing model (stated to be Random Forest). The figure and report should be clearly labeled with the corresponding model.
[§3.5] The classification report is presented as plain text without a model name or table caption; it should be formatted as a proper table and explicitly attributed to the model whose results are being reported.
[References] The reference list contains several entries that are not cited in the text, and the dataset itself (the UCI Heart Disease dataset) is not formally cited. Please add the appropriate dataset citation and remove or integrate uncited references.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the machine-learning benchmark is evaluated on an external public dataset; the internal metric inconsistencies are correctness and reproducibility issues, not circular derivation.

full rationale

This paper reports a standard supervised classification benchmark on the public Cleveland heart-disease dataset (303 samples, 14 features). The claimed derivation chain is simply: preprocess the data, train three off-the-shelf classifiers, tune hyperparameters on the training split, and evaluate on a held-out 80/20 test split. Random Forest's reported accuracy and F1-score are empirical measurements on that held-out data, not quantities that are equal to any fitted parameter or input by construction. There is no self-definitional step, no fitted input relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem. The serious problems in this manuscript are internal inconsistencies: the abstract reports 91% accuracy and F1 0.89, the discussion reports 91% accuracy and F1 0.91, the conclusion reports 89% accuracy and F1 0.91, the confusion-matrix text implies 54/61 = 88.5% accuracy, and Figure 4's caption says Logistic Regression achieved the highest accuracy while the text says Random Forest outperformed the others. These contradictions undermine reproducibility and cast doubt on the headline numbers, but they are evidence of an unreliable evaluation report, not evidence that the result reduces to its own inputs. A hyperparameter search on a small dataset can also create selection-overfitting risk, but that is a statistical-soundness concern rather than circularity. Therefore the appropriate circularity finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a benchmark result that depends on data quality, split randomness, and hidden hyperparameter choices. None are independently verified; the internal number conflicts suggest the evaluation pipeline is unreliable.

free parameters (4)

KNN number of neighbors (k) = not reported
Tuned via GridSearchCV on the training set; final value not given in the paper.
Random Forest number of trees / max depth = not reported
Tuned via RandomizedSearchCV; final values not reported.
train_test_split random_state = not reported
The split is not reproducible without the random seed; a different split can change the small test set (about 60 instances) and the reported accuracy.
Feature scaling and imputation parameters = not reported
StandardScaler fitted on training set; no details on handling missing values in 'ca' and 'thal', which are commonly imputed.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The Cleveland dataset labels and feature values are accurate.
The paper relies entirely on the public dataset's correctness with no external validation.
domain assumption The 80/20 train/test split provides an unbiased estimate of model performance.
No repeated cross-validation or confidence intervals; small test set makes this fragile.
domain assumption Hyperparameter tuning on the training set does not invalidate the test-set estimate.
Standard practice, but without nested CV or repeated splits there is a risk of selection bias.
standard math Standard ML implementation assumptions (e.g., scikit-learn defaults) are correctly applied.
No code is provided to check correct scaling, encoding, and leakage handling.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Comprehensive Machine Learning Framework for Heart Disease Prediction: Performance Evaluation and Future Perspectives." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RVTBEFAU

@misc{pith2026250509969,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Comprehensive Machine Learning Framework for Heart Disease Prediction: Performance Evaluation and Future Perspectives},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RVTBEFAU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09969}
}

read the original abstract

This study presents a machine learning-based framework for heart disease prediction using the heart-disease dataset, comprising 303 samples with 14 features. The methodology involves data preprocessing, model training, and evaluation using three classifiers: Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), and Random Forest. Hyperparameter tuning with GridSearchCV and RandomizedSearchCV was employed to enhance model performance. The Random Forest classifier outperformed other models, achieving an accuracy of 91% and an F1-score of 0.89. Evaluation metrics, including precision, recall, and confusion matrix, revealed balanced performance across classes. The proposed model demonstrates strong potential for aiding clinical decision-making by effectively predicting heart disease. Limitations such as dataset size and generalizability underscore the need for future studies using larger and more diverse datasets. This work highlights the utility of machine learning in healthcare, offering insights for further advancements in predictive diagnostics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09969 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Association Between Age, Heart Rate, and Disease Status The scatter plot illustrates the correlation between age, maximum heart rate, and the presence of heart disease. Each data point represents an individual, with the x-axis indicating age and the y-axis representing maximum heart rate. The color of the data point signifies the presence or absence of heart disease. The graph suggests that there might be a trend or… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** scatter plot visualizes the relationship between age, maximum heart rate, and the presence of heart disease. The scatter plot illustrates the correlation between age, maximum heart rate, and the presence of heart disease. Each data point represents an individual, with the x-axis indicating age and the y-axis representing maximum heart rate. The color of the data point signifies the presence or absence of heart disea… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

& Singh, P

Diwakar, M., Tripathi, A., Joshi, K., Memoria, M. & Singh, P. Latest trends on heart disease prediction using machine learning and image fusion. Mater. Today Proc. 37, 3213–3218 (2021)

work page 2021
[2]

& Thangavelu, M

Harimoorthy, K. & Thangavelu, M. Multi -disease prediction model using improved SVM -radial bias technique in the healthcare monitoring system. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 12, 3715–3723 (2021)

work page 2021
[3]

Mansour, R. F. et al. Artificial intelligence and the internet of things enabled disease diagnosis model for smart healthcare systems. IEEE Access 9, 45137–45146 (2021)

work page 2021
[4]

Artificial intelligence for COVID -19: A Short Article

Mijwil, M.M.; Abttan, R.A.; Alkhazraji, A. Artificial intelligence for COVID -19: A Short Article. Asian J. Pharm. Nurs. Med. Sci. 2022, 10, 1–6

work page 2022
[5]

Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data? PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0174944

Weng, S.F.; Reps, J.; Kai, J.; Garibaldi, J.M.; Qureshi, N. Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data? PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0174944

work page 2017
[6]

Deep learning-based smart predictive evaluation for interactive multimedia-enabled smart healthcare

Lv, Z.; Yu, Z.; Xie, S.; Alamri, A. Deep learning-based smart predictive evaluation for interactive multimedia-enabled smart healthcare. ACM Trans. Multimed. Comput. Commun. Appl. TOMM 2022, 18, 1–20

work page 2022
[7]

Decision Tree Algorithms for Prediction of Heart Disease

Maji, S.; Arora, S. Decision Tree Algorithms for Prediction of Heart Disease. In Proceedings of the Information and Communication Technology for Competitive Strategies, Singapore, 13–14 December 2019; pp. 447–454

work page 2019
[8]

A novel DBSCAN with entropy and probability for mixed data

Liu, X.; Yang, Q.; He, L. A novel DBSCAN with entropy and probability for mixed data. Clust. Comput. 2017, 20, 1313 – 1323

work page 2017

Show all 25 references

[9]

A study of the behavior of several methods for balancing machine learning training data

Batista, G.E.; Prati, R.C.; Monard, M.C. A study of the behavior of several methods for balancing machine learning training data. ACM SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 2004, 6, 20–29

2004
[10]

Heart disease prediction system using random forest

Singh, Y.K.; Sinha, N.; Singh, S.K. Heart disease prediction system using random forest. In Proceedings of the Advances in Computing and Data Sciences: First International Conference, ICACDS 2016, Ghaziabad, India, 11 –12 November 2016; Revised Selected Papers 1. Springer: Ber...

2016
[11]

Machine learning and end -to-end deep learning for the detection of chronic heart failure from heart sounds

Gjoreski, M.; Gradišek, A.; Budna, B.; Gams, M.; Poglajen, G. Machine learning and end -to-end deep learning for the detection of chronic heart failure from heart sounds. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 20313–20324

2020
[12]

A machine learning approach for chronic heart failure diagnosis

Plati, D.K.; Tripoliti, E.E.; Bechlioulis, A.; Rammos, A.; Dimou, I.; Lakkas, L.; Watson, C.; McDonald, K.; Ledwidge, M.; Pharithi, R.; et al. A machine learning approach for chronic heart failure diagnosis. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 1863

2021
[13]

Chronic heart failure detection from heart sounds using a stack of machine -learning classifiers

Gjoreski, M.; Simjanoska, M.; Gradišek, A.; Peterlin, A.; Gams, M.; Poglajen, G. Chronic heart failure detection from heart sounds using a stack of machine -learning classifiers. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Intelligent Environments (IE), Seoul, Repub...

2017
[14]

Predicting the likelihood of heart failure with a multi level risk assessment using decision tree

Aljaaf, A.J.; Al-Jumeily, D.; Hussain, A.J.; Dawson, T.; Fergus, P.; Al-Jumaily, M. Predicting the likelihood of heart failure with a multi level risk assessment using decision tree. In Proceedings of the 2015 Third International Conference on Technological Advances in Electri...

2015
[15]

Abdollahi, J., & Aref, S. (2024). Early Prediction of Diabetes Using Feature Selection and Machine Learning Algorithms. SN Computer Science, 5(2), 217

2024
[16]

A., Negaresh, M., Abdollahi, J., Mohammadi, M., Ghobadi, H., Mohammadzadeh, B., & Amani, F

Javadzadeh Barzaki, M. A., Negaresh, M., Abdollahi, J., Mohammadi, M., Ghobadi, H., Mohammadzadeh, B., & Amani, F. (2022, July). USING DEEP LEARNING NETWORKS FOR CLASSIFICATION OF LUNG CANCER NODULES IN CT IMAGES. In Iranian Congress of Radiology (Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 34-34). I...

2022
[17]

(2024, February)

Abdollahi, J., & Mehrpour, O. (2024, February). Using Machine Learning Algorithms for Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) Prediction Prediction of Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) Using Machine Learning Algorithms. In 2024 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Ro...

2024
[18]

Barzaki, M. A. J. Z., Abdollahi, J., Negaresh, M., Salimi, M., Zolfaghari, H., Mohammadi, M., ... & Amani, F. (2023, November). Using Deep Learning for Classification of Lung Cancer on CT Images in Ardabil Province: Classification of Lung Cancer using Xcep tion. In 2023 13th I...

2023
[19]

(2024, February)

Abdollahi, J., & Amani, F. (2024, February). The impact of analysis Suicide using machine learning algorithms in Ardabil: A performance analysis: using machine learning algorithms in analysis Suicide. In 2024 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Robotic...

2024
[20]

(2024, February)

Amani, F., Abdollahi, J., & Amani, P. (2024, February). Identify the Factors Influencing Suicide among Ardabil city People Using Feature Selection: Identify the Factors Influencing Suicide among Ardabil using machine learning. In 2024 10th International Conference on Artificia...

2024
[21]

I., & Naji, H

Nouri-Moghaddam, B., Shahabian, M. I., & Naji, H. R. Multi-Agent Based PGP Architecture. architecture, 3, 5
[22]

Nouri-Moghaddam, B., & Naji, H. R. (2013, May). Improving HBQ Authentication and Access control in wireless sensor network. In The 5th Conference on Information and Knowledge Technology (pp. 82-87). IEEE

2013
[23]

Tarif, M., Mirzaei, A., & Nouri -Moghaddam, B. (2024). Optimizing RPL Routing Using Tabu Search to Improve Link Stability and Energy Consumption in IoT Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06702

2024 arXiv
[24]

Nouri-Moghaddam, B., & Naji, H. R. (2015). A novel authentication and access control framework in wireless sensor networks. Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Technology, 4(1), 122-135

2015
[25]

Nouri-Moghaddam, B., Ghazanfari, M., & Fathian, M. (2020). A novel filter -wrapper hybrid gene selection approach for microarray data based on multi-objective forest optimization algorithm. Decision Science Letters, 9(3), 271-290

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

& Singh, P

Diwakar, M., Tripathi, A., Joshi, K., Memoria, M. & Singh, P. Latest trends on heart disease prediction using machine learning and image fusion. Mater. Today Proc. 37, 3213–3218 (2021)

work page 2021

[2] [2]

& Thangavelu, M

Harimoorthy, K. & Thangavelu, M. Multi -disease prediction model using improved SVM -radial bias technique in the healthcare monitoring system. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 12, 3715–3723 (2021)

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Mansour, R. F. et al. Artificial intelligence and the internet of things enabled disease diagnosis model for smart healthcare systems. IEEE Access 9, 45137–45146 (2021)

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Artificial intelligence for COVID -19: A Short Article

Mijwil, M.M.; Abttan, R.A.; Alkhazraji, A. Artificial intelligence for COVID -19: A Short Article. Asian J. Pharm. Nurs. Med. Sci. 2022, 10, 1–6

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data? PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0174944

Weng, S.F.; Reps, J.; Kai, J.; Garibaldi, J.M.; Qureshi, N. Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data? PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0174944

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Deep learning-based smart predictive evaluation for interactive multimedia-enabled smart healthcare

Lv, Z.; Yu, Z.; Xie, S.; Alamri, A. Deep learning-based smart predictive evaluation for interactive multimedia-enabled smart healthcare. ACM Trans. Multimed. Comput. Commun. Appl. TOMM 2022, 18, 1–20

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Decision Tree Algorithms for Prediction of Heart Disease

Maji, S.; Arora, S. Decision Tree Algorithms for Prediction of Heart Disease. In Proceedings of the Information and Communication Technology for Competitive Strategies, Singapore, 13–14 December 2019; pp. 447–454

work page 2019

[8] [8]

A novel DBSCAN with entropy and probability for mixed data

Liu, X.; Yang, Q.; He, L. A novel DBSCAN with entropy and probability for mixed data. Clust. Comput. 2017, 20, 1313 – 1323

work page 2017