Performance Evaluation of Supervised Machine Learning Models for Heart Disease Prediction Using Clinical Survey Data

Md. Nasim Ali; Mahir Bin Ayub; Sohel Rana

doi:10.22456/2175-2745.153722

Authors

Md. Nasim Ali CCN University of Science and Technology https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9990-7505
Mahir Bin Ayub CCN University of Science and Technology https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9334-6755
Sohel Rana CCN University of Science and Technology https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4622-1278

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22456/2175-2745.153722

Keywords:

machine learning, random forest, cross-validation, heart disease, precision, accuracy

Abstract

This study focuses on evaluating the performance of supervised machine learning models using clinical survey data. We constructed a machine learning pipeline to evaluate the performance of the heart disease prediction models. For this study, we collected clinical data from 399 patients at Cumilla Medical College Hospital. The features included gender, age, blood group, smoking, diastolic pressure, systolic pressure, glucose, hypertension, chest pain (CP), BMI, family medical history (family P), stroke, and heart disease (Heart problem). Heart disease (Heart Problem) was used as the target variable. Initially, we encoded all categorical features, including the binary target label, then separated the target variable. We used Random Over-Sampling to balance the distribution of classes. We applied random over-sampling only on the training dataset. We randomly divided the dataset into 80% training and 20% testing sets. We trained and evaluated five machine learning models on split data, including SVM, Random Forest, Logistic Regression, Decision Trees, and K-Nearest Neighbors. Finally, we calculated accuracy, precision, recall, and the F1-score from the Confusion matrix analysis and 5-fold cross-validation of these models. Then, we compared the evaluation performance of these models. We observed that the Random Forest achieved the highest test accuracy of 90%, and the cross-validation accuracy was 93%. The Support Vector Machine and Logistic Regression achieved slightly lower accuracy. K-Nearest Neighbors had the poorest performance, comparatively lower recall for the positive class. Ensemble models, notably Random Forest, appear to have potential in clinical practice but should be evaluated in larger and more heterogeneous populations. Using clinical data that was acquired locally, this work offers a comparative performance benchmark and highlights generalization behavior across validation methodologies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Md. Nasim Ali, CCN University of Science and Technology

Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering CCN University of Science and Technology Cumilla, Chattogram Division.

Mahir Bin Ayub, CCN University of Science and Technology

Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering CCN University of Science and Technology Cumilla, Chattogram Division.

Sohel Rana, CCN University of Science and Technology

Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering CCN University of Science and Technology Cumilla, Chattogram Division.

References

[1] SUBASI, O. et al. The landscape of modern machine learning: A review of machine, distributed and federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03120, 2023.

[2] A, R. G. et al. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, 1990–2019: update from the GBD 2019 study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Elsevier, v. 76, n. 25, p. 2980–2981, 2020.

[3] WARD, A. et al. Machine learning and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk prediction in a multi-ethnic population. NPJ Digital Medicine, Nature Publishing Group UK London, v. 3, n. 1, p. 125, 2020.

[4] KRITTANAWONG, C. et al. Machine learning prediction in cardiovascular diseases: a meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, Nature Publishing Group UK London, v. 10, n. 1, p. 16057, 2020.

[5] ALI, M. M. et al. Heart disease prediction using supervised machine learning algorithms: Performance analysis and comparison. Computers in Biology and Medicine, Elsevier, v. 136, p. 104672, 2021.

[6] SUBRAMANI, S. et al. Cardiovascular diseases prediction by machine learning incorporation with deep learning. Frontiers in Medicine, Frontiers Media SA, v. 10, p. 1150933, 2023.

[7] PATHAN, M. S. et al. Analyzing the impact of feature selection on the accuracy of heart disease prediction. Healthcare Analytics, Elsevier, v. 2, p. 100060, 2022.

[8] ALFADLI, K. M.; ALMAGRABI, A. O. Feature-limited prediction on the UCI heart disease dataset. Computers, Materials & Continua, v. 74, n. 3, 2023.

[9] MIENYE, I. D.; JERE, N. Optimized ensemble learning approach with explainable AI for improved heart disease prediction. Information, MDPI, v. 15, n. 7, p. 394, 2024.

[10] BANERJEE, A. et al. Machine learning for subtype definition and risk prediction in heart failure, acute coronary syndromes and atrial fibrillation: systematic review of validity and clinical utility. BMC Medicine, Springer, v. 19, n. 1, p. 85, 2021.

[11] LIU, T. et al. Machine learning based prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk using electronic health records data: systematic review and meta-analysis. European Heart Journal-Digital Health, Oxford University Press UK, v. 6, n. 1, p. 7–22, 2025.

[12] HAN, S.; WILLIAMSON, B. D.; FONG, Y. Improving random forest predictions in small datasets from two-phase sampling designs. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, Springer, v. 21, n. 1, p. 322, 2021.

[13] GOVINDU, A.; PALWE, S. Early detection of Parkinson’s disease using machine learning. Procedia Computer Science, Elsevier, v. 218, p. 249–261, 2023.

[14] UDDIN, N. et al. HPML-CVD: hyperparameter tuned machine learning model to predict cardiovascular disease. Biomedical Materials & Devices, Springer, v. 4, n. 1, p. 861–875, 2026.

[15] PARAMI, N. et al. Predicting heart disease using random forest: A comparative analysis. In: SPRINGER. International Conference on Computer Vision and Robotics. [S.l.], 2024. p. 15–25.

[16] RANI, P. et al. A decision support system for heart disease prediction based upon machine learning. Journal of Reliable Intelligent Environments, Springer, v. 7, n. 3, p. 263–275, 2021.

[17] LAMIR, A. A.; RAZZAGZADEH, S.; REZAEI, Z. A comprehensive machine learning framework for heart disease prediction: Performance evaluation and future perspectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09969, 2025.

[18] CHANDRASEKHAR, N.; PEDDAKRISHNA, S. Enhancing heart disease prediction accuracy through machine learning techniques and optimization. Processes, MDPI, v. 11, n. 4, p. 1210, 2023.

[19] MOHAMADI, Z. et al. The application of random forest-based models in prognostication of gastrointestinal tract malignancies: a systematic review. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, Frontiers Media SA, v. 8, p. 1517670, 2025.

[20] ALLGAIER, J.; PRYSS, R. Cross-validation visualized: a narrative guide to advanced methods. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction, MDPI, v. 6, n. 2, p. 1378–1388, 2024.

[21] HONG, W. et al. Usefulness of random forest algorithm in predicting severe acute pancreatitis. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, Frontiers Media SA, v. 12, p. 893294, 2022.

[22] OMANKWU, O. C.; OSODOEKE, E. C.; UBAH, V. I. Disease prediction using random forest machine learning algorithm. NIPES-Journal of Science and Technology Research, v. 6, n. 1, 2024.

[23] LI, H.-J. et al. Radiomics-based support vector machine distinguishes molecular events driving the progression of lung adenocarcinoma. Journal of Thoracic Oncology, Elsevier, v. 20, n. 1, p. 52–64, 2025.

[24] GUIDO, R. et al. An overview on the advancements of support vector machine models in healthcare applications: a review. Information, MDPI, v. 15, n. 4, p. 235, 2024.

[25] HU, Y. et al. Beyond comparing machine learning and logistic regression in clinical prediction modelling: Shifting from model debate to data quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research, JMIR Publications Toronto, Canada, v. 27, p. e77721, 2025.

[26] MANN, J. et al. Machine learning or traditional statistical methods for predictive modelling in perioperative medicine: A narrative review. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, Elsevier, v. 102, p. 111782, 2025.

[27] UDDIN, S. et al. Comparative performance analysis of k-nearest neighbour (KNN) algorithm and its different variants for disease prediction. Scientific Reports, Nature Publishing Group UK London, v. 12, n. 1, p. 6256, 2022.

[28] HALDER, R. K. et al. Enhancing k-nearest neighbor algorithm: a comprehensive review and performance analysis of modifications. Journal of Big Data, Springer, v. 11, n. 1, p. 113, 2024.

[29] COSTA, V. G.; PEDREIRA, C. E. Recent advances in decision trees: an updated survey. Artificial Intelligence Review, Springer, v. 56, n. 5, p. 4765–4800, 2023.

[30] YILDIZ, A. Y.; KALAYCI, A. Gradient boosting decision trees on medical diagnosis over tabular data. In: IEEE. 2025 IEEE International Conference on AI and Data Analytics (ICAD). [S.l.], 2025. p. 1–8.

[31] BETRU, B.; GETAHUN, F. Ontology-driven intelligent IT incident management model. IJITCS, v. 15, p. 30–41, 2023.

[32] SUHARJO, B.; INDRAJIT, R. E. et al. Performance comparison of k-nearest neighbor, decision tree, and random forest methods for classification of cyber defense master scholarship recipients. Internet of Things and Artificial Intelligence Journal, v. 4, n. 4, p. 666–676, 2024.