IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0354304.html

Reproducible benchmarking of four machine-learning classifiers on a large synthetic heart-disease competition dataset

Author

Listed:
  • Raed M Ennab

Abstract

Background: Public synthetic datasets enable transparent model comparison but cannot establish performance in clinical populations. We asked how four fixed classifiers compare under one leakage-controlled validation framework on a large synthetic heart-disease competition dataset. Methods: The official training set contained 630,000 observations (44.83% outcome prevalence) and 13 predictors; the 270,000-row test set had no outcome labels. L2-regularized logistic regression, HistGradientBoosting, CatBoost, and LightGBM were evaluated using identical stratified five-fold outer splits. Logistic-regression preprocessing was fitted within outer-training data, and early stopping used outer-training data only. The primary measure was pooled out-of-fold (OOF) AUROC; secondary measures were average precision, Brier score, calibration intercept and slope, fold variability, and train–validation optimism. Duplicate/overlap, identifier-only, and permuted-outcome controls assessed leakage. Results: Pooled OOF AUROC was 0.955443 for CatBoost, 0.955324 for LightGBM, 0.955066 for HistGradientBoosting, and 0.952874 for logistic regression. Corresponding average precision ranged from 0.945912 to 0.948828 and Brier scores from 0.081116 to 0.083518. Calibration intercepts ranged from −0.001299 to 0.002153 and slopes from 0.998896 to 1.004388. Mean optimism was 0.000017–0.002686. No duplicated identifiers, duplicated feature profiles, or train–test feature-profile overlap were found; identifier-only AUROC was 0.500121 and mean permuted-outcome AUROC was 0.500615. Conclusions: All four models discriminated strongly and showed close internal calibration, while gradient-boosting models had only marginally higher AUROC than logistic regression. The principal contribution is a fully rerunnable, controlled benchmark rather than a novel algorithm or a clinically validated prediction model. External performance in real clinical cohorts remains unknown.

Suggested Citation

  • Raed M Ennab, 2026. "Reproducible benchmarking of four machine-learning classifiers on a large synthetic heart-disease competition dataset," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(9), pages 1-10, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0354304
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0354304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0354304
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0354304&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0354304?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0354304. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.