| Literature DB >> 36132544 |
S Haseena1, S Kavi Priya2, S Saroja1, R Madavan3, M Muhibbullah4, Umashankar Subramaniam5.
Abstract
Heart disease is among the leading causes of mortality globally. Predicting cardiovascular disease is a major difficulty in clinical data analysis. AI has been demonstrated to be powerful in deciding and anticipating an enormous measure of information created by the health domain. We provide a unique method for finding essential traits employing machine learning approaches in this paper, which enhances the effectiveness of identifying heart diseases. Decision tree (DT), support vector machine (SVM), artificial neural network (ANN), and K-nearest neighbor (KNN) are the classification techniques used to create the proposed system. Ensemble stacking integrates the four classification models to create a single best-fit predictive model using logistic regression. Many explorations have been directed at the identification of cardiac infection; however, the exactness of the outcomes is poor. Accordingly, to further enhance the efficiency, Moth-Flame Optimization (MFO) algorithm is proposed. The feature selection strategies are used to improve the classification accuracy while shortening the execution time of the classification system. Medical data are used to assess the probability of heart disease based on BP, age, gender, chest ache, cholesterol, blood sugar, and other variables. Results revealed that the proposed system excelled other existing models, obtaining 99% accuracy in the Cleveland dataset.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36132544 PMCID: PMC9484941 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9178302
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
Figure 1Schematic diagram of proposed system.
Cleveland dataset used for the proposed system.
| Name | Cleveland |
| Total # of instances | 303 |
| Number of attributes | 75 |
| Omitted values | Yes |
| Dataset type | Multivariate |
| Attribute type | Categorical, integer, real |
| Tasks performed | Classification |
Figure 2Heat map of Cleveland dataset.
Instances in the dataset after preprocessing.
| Name | Instances present | With HD | Without HD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleveland | 283 | 157 (55%) | 126 (45%) |
Experimental results of preprocessing technique.
| S. no | Method | Precision (%) | Recall (%) |
| Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | No preprocessing | 80 | 80 | 81 | 79 |
| 2 | Noise removal | 82 | 80 | 86 | 85 |
| 3 | Normalization using min-max | 86 | 84 | 80 | 87 |
| 4 | Normalization using | 87 | 85 | 86 | 86 |
| 5 | Combining 2, 3, and 4 | 90 | 89 | 89 | 91 |
Experimental results of feature selection approach.
| S. no | Methodology | Precision (%) | Recall (%) |
| Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Genetic algorithm | 82 | 81 | 76 | 81 |
| 2 | Particle swarm optimization | 87 | 86 | 84 | 89 |
| 3 | Moth-Flame Optimization | 90 | 87 | 87 | 91 |
Experimental results of feature extraction approach.
| S. no | Methodology | Precision (%) | Recall (%) |
| Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) | 81 | 79 | 73 | 80 |
| 2 | Nonnegative matrix factorization (NMF) | 80 | 83 | 84 | 85 |
| 3 | Principal component analysis (PCA) | 90 | 86 | 87 | 90 |
Figure 3Comparison of preprocessing techniques.
Experimental results of classification approach.
| S. no | Methodology | Precision (%) | Recall (%) |
| Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DT | 94 | 95 | 98 | 98 |
| 2 | SVM | 96 | 98 | 98 | 99 |
| 3 | ANN | 98 | 94 | 97 | 98 |
| 4 | KNN | 97 | 97 | 98 | 96 |
| 5 | Ensemble stacking | 98 | 98 | 99 | 99 |
Evaluation with other existing studies.
| S. no | Approaches | Precision (%) | Recall (%) |
| Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Miao et al. [ | 81 | 71 | 80 | 80 |
| 2 | Naidu and Rajendra [ | 80 | 85 | 82 | 85 |
| 3 | Shamosollahi et al. [ | 92 | 90 | 90 | 92 |
| 4 | Hungarian dataset | 93 | 91 | 95 | 94 |
| 5 | Proposed method (Cleveland dataset) | 98 | 98 | 99 | 99 |
Figure 4Comparison of (a) feature selection techniques and (b) feature extraction technique.
Figure 5Comparison of various state-of-art methods.