International Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Exploration ISSN (Print): 2394-5443    ISSN (Online): 2394-7454 Volume-13 Issue-135 February-2026
  1. 4774
    Citations
  2. 2.8
    CiteScore
Fuzzy-driven gradient boosting for interpretable cardiovascular disease risk prediction

Fadhillah Azmi1, Amir Saleh2, Nurul Khairina3, Surya Alpacino Manurung1 and Muhammad Fadhil1

Department of Electrical Engineering,Universitas Medan Area, Jl. Kolam No. 1, Medan Estate, Percut Sei Tuan, Medan 20223,North Sumatra,Indonesia1
Department of Computer Engineering,Politeknik Negeri Medan, Jl. Almamater No. 1, Padang Bulan, Medan 20155,North Sumatra,Indonesia2
Department of Informatics Engineering,Universitas Medan Area, Jl. Kolam No. 1, Medan Estate, Percut Sei Tuan, Medan 20223,North Sumatra,Indonesia3
Corresponding Author : Fadhillah Azmi

Recieved : 30-June-2025; Revised : 15-February-2026; Accepted : 17-February-2026

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) continues to be the foremost cause of mortality globally, highlighting the necessity for predictive models that are both precise and clinically interpretable. However, most machine learning (ML) models operate as “black boxes,” constraining their utility for practical medical decision-making. This paper presents a fuzzy-driven gradient boosting (GB) framework that incorporates fuzzy logic into the ML workflow to enhance interpretability while maintaining predictive performance. Employing the fuzzy c-means (FCM) methodology, triangular membership functions (MFs) are developed to convert five principal clinical variables—age, height, weight, systolic blood pressure (ap_hi), and diastolic blood pressure (ap_lo)—into linguistically interpretable categories. Each data point is transformed into a set of fuzzy membership values derived from the pertinent MFs, signifying its partial association with different linguistic categories. The framework is evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation (CV) on three feature types: raw data, fuzzy-linguistic labels, and fuzzy MF values, with the latter being the core fuzzy representation. The experimental results indicate that the hybrid model achieves the best performance, with an accuracy of 73.37% and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.800 on Dataset I, and an accuracy of 98.83% with an AUROC of 0.996 on Dataset II. Fuzzy transformation was shown to significantly improve model transparency and provide clinically meaningful explanations. Overall, this proposed framework offers a promising direction for the development of interpretable, reliable, and high-performance artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support systems (CDSS) for predicting CVD risk.

Keywords

Cardiovascular disease (CVD), Fuzzy logic, Gradient boosting, Fuzzy c-means (FCM), Clinical decision support systems (CDSS).

Cite this article

Azmi F, Saleh A, Khairina N, Manurung SA, Fadhil M. Fuzzy-driven gradient boosting for interpretable cardiovascular disease risk prediction. International Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Exploration. 2026;13(135):225-244. DOI : 10.19101/IJATEE.2025.121220881

References
[1]
Netala VR, Teertam SK, Li H, Zhang Z. A comprehensive review of cardiovascular disease management: cardiac biomarkers, imaging modalities, pharmacotherapy, surgical interventions, and herbal remedies. Cells. 2024; 13(17):1-69.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[2]
Kazi DS, Elkind MS, Deutsch A, Dowd WN, Heidenreich P, Khavjou O, et al. Forecasting the economic burden of cardiovascular disease and stroke in the United States through 2050: a presidential advisory from the American heart association. Circulation. 2024; 150(4): e89-101.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[3]
Liu T, Krentz A, Lu L, Curcin V. Machine learning based prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk using electronic health records data: systematic review and meta-analysis. European Heart Journal-Digital Health. 2025; 6(1):7-22.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[4]
Liu T, Krentz AJ, Huo Z, Ćurčin V. Opportunities and challenges of cardiovascular disease risk prediction for primary prevention using machine learning and electronic health records: a systematic review. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2025; 26(4):1-20.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[5]
Suliman A, Masud M, Serhani MA, Abdullahi AS, Oulhaj A. Predictive performance of machine learning compared to statistical methods in time-to-event analysis of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2024; 14(4):1-5.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[6]
Dorraki M, Liao Z, Abbott D, Psaltis PJ, Baker E, Bidargaddi N, et al. Improving cardiovascular disease prediction with machine learning using mental health data: a prospective UK Biobank study. JACC: Advances. 2024; 3(9_Part_2):1-9.
[Google Scholar]
[7]
Chi Z, Liu L, Yi L, Shi L. Prediction of cardiovascular diseases based on GBDT+ LR. Scientific Reports. 2025; 15(1):1-15.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[8]
Xu C, Shi F, Ding W, Fang C, Fang C. Development and validation of a machine learning model for cardiovascular disease risk prediction in type 2 diabetes patients. Scientific Reports. 2025; 15(1):1-15.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[9]
Liu Y, Liu C, Zheng J, Xu C, Wang D. Improving explainability and integrability of medical AI to promote health care professional acceptance and use: mixed systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2025; 27:1-22.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[10]
Nasarian E, Alizadehsani R, Acharya UR, Tsui KL. Designing interpretable ML system to enhance trust in healthcare: a systematic review to proposed responsible clinician-AI-collaboration framework. Information Fusion. 2024; 108:102412.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[11]
Reddy S, Shaikh S. The long road ahead: navigating obstacles and building bridges for clinical integration of artificial intelligence technologies. Journal of Medical Artificial Intelligence. 2025; 8:1-8.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[12]
Retzlaff CO, Angerschmid A, Saranti A, Schneeberger D, Roettger R, Mueller H, et al. Post-hoc vs ante-hoc explanations: xAI design guidelines for data scientists. Cognitive Systems Research. 2024; 86:1-17.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[13]
Budhkar A, Song Q, Su J, Zhang X. Demystifying the black box: a survey on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in bioinformatics. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal. 2025; 27: 346-59.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[14]
Ennab M, Mcheick H. Enhancing interpretability and accuracy of AI models in healthcare: a comprehensive review on challenges and future directions. Frontiers in Robotics and AI. 2024; 11:1444763.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[15]
Ahmad AA, Polat H. Prediction of heart disease based on machine learning using jellyfish optimization algorithm. Diagnostics. 2023; 13(14):1-17.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[16]
Naik A, Tejani GG, Mousavirad SJ. SGO enhanced random forest and extreme gradient boosting framework for heart disease prediction. Scientific Reports. 2025; 15(1):1-31.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[17]
Bizimana PC, Zhang Z, Hounye AH, Asim M, Hammad M, El-latif AA. Automated heart disease prediction using improved explainable learning-based technique. Neural Computing and Applications. 2024; 36(26):16289-318.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[18]
Petch J, Di S, Nelson W. Opening the black box: the promise and limitations of explainable machine learning in cardiology. Canadian Journal of Cardiology. 2022; 38(2):204-13.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[19]
El-ibrahimi A, Daanouni O, Alouani Z, El GO, Saleh S, Cherradi B, et al. Fuzzy based system for coronary artery disease prediction using subtractive clustering and risk factors data. Intelligence-Based Medicine. 2025; 11:1-14.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[20]
Teja MD, Rayalu GM. Optimizing heart disease diagnosis with advanced machine learning models: a comparison of predictive performance. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. 2025; 25(1):1-12.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[21]
Jhumka K, Auzine MM, Heenaye-mamode KM, Casseem SM, Fedally SA, Mungloo-dilmohamud Z. Explainable chronic kidney disease (CKD) prediction using deep learning and Shapley additive explanations (SHAP). In proceedings of the 7th international conference on advances in artificial intelligence 2023 (pp. 29-33). ACM.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[22]
Palatnik DSI, Maria BRVM, Costa DSE. Local interpretable model-agnostic explanations for classification of lymph node metastases. Sensors. 2019; 19(13):1-18.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[23]
Ali ML, Sadi MS, Goni MO. Diagnosis of heart diseases: a fuzzy-logic-based approach. Plos One. 2024; 19(2):1-25.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[24]
Mariadoss S, Augustin F. Enhanced sugeno fuzzy inference system with fuzzy AHP and coefficient of variation to diagnose cardiovascular disease during pregnancy. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences. 2023; 35(8):1-25.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[25]
Li Y, Li D, Xu Y. Research on the prediction model of sudden death risk in coronary heart disease based on XGBoost and random forest. Symmetry. 2025; 17(9):1-23.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[26]
Fatima U, Khushal R. Enhancing explainability in epidemiological predictions using fuzzy logic integrated with machine and deep learning algorithms. Scientific Reports. 2025; 15(1):1-23.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[27]
Wang T, Gault R, Greer D. Data informed initialization of fuzzy membership functions. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems. 2025:1-12.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[28]
Krzysztoń E, Mikołajewski D, Prokopowicz P. Review of fuzzy methods application in IIoT security-challenges and perspectives. Electronics. 2025; 14(17),1-25.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[29]
Koukaras P, Tjortjis C. Data preprocessing and feature engineering for data mining: techniques, tools, and best practices. AI. 2025;6(10):1-40.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[30]
Liu M, Li S, Yuan H, Ong ME, Ning Y, Xie F, et al. Handling missing values in healthcare data: a systematic review of deep learning-based imputation techniques. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 2023; 142:102587.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[31]
Leinonen T, Wong D, Vasankari A, Wahab A, Nadarajah R, Kaisti M, et al. Empirical investigation of multi-source cross-validation in clinical ECG classification. Computers in Biology and Medicine. 2024; 183:109271.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[32]
Abdussamad AM, Inayat A. Addressing limitations of the K-means clustering algorithm: outliers, non-spherical data, and optimal cluster selection. AIMS Math. 2024; 9(9):25070-97.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[33]
Sewwandi MA, Li Y, Zhang J. K-outlier removal based on contextual label information and cluster purity for continuous data classification. Expert Systems with Applications. 2024; 237:1-15.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[34]
Xu Q, Xie W, Liao B, Hu C, Qin L, Yang Z, et al. Interpretability of clinical decision support systems based on artificial intelligence from technological and medical perspective: a systematic review. Journal of Healthcare Engineering. 2023; 2023(1):1-13.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[35]
Kim SY, Kim DH, Kim MJ, Ko HJ, Jeong OR. XAI-based clinical decision support systems: a systematic review. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(15):1-25.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[36]
Krasnov D, Davis D, Malott K, Chen Y, Shi X, Wong A. Fuzzy c-means clustering: a review of applications in breast cancer detection. Entropy. 2023; 25(7):1-14.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[37]
Pérez-ortega J, Moreno-calderón CF, Roblero-aguilar SS, Almanza-ortega NN, Frausto-solís J, Pazos-rangel R, et al. A new criterion for improving convergence of fuzzy C-means clustering. Axioms. 2024; 13(1):1-16.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[38]
Gu X, Han J, Shen Q, Angelov PP. Autonomous learning for fuzzy systems: a review. Artificial Intelligence Review. 2023; 56(8):7549-95.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[39]
Singh DP. A comparative analysis of machine learning techniques for hypertension risk prediction and diagnostic classification. International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology. 2025; 11(12): 7183-95.
[Google Scholar]
[40]
Kumar R, Garg S, Kaur R, Johar MG, Singh S, Menon SV, et al. A comprehensive review of machine learning for heart disease prediction: challenges, trends, ethical considerations, and future directions. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. 2025; 8:1-31.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[41]
Airlangga G, Liu A. A hybrid gradient boosting and neural network model for predicting urban happiness: integrating ensemble learning with deep representation for enhanced accuracy. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction. 2025; 7(1):1-23.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[42]
Hussain A, Aslam A. Cardiovascular disease prediction using risk factors: a comparative performance analysis of machine learning models. Journal on Artificial Intelligence. 2024; 6(1):129-52.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[43]
Rainio O, Teuho J, Klén R. Evaluation metrics and statistical tests for machine learning. Scientific Reports. 2024; 14(1):1-14.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[44]
Salmi M, Atif D, Oliva D, Abraham A, Ventura S. Handling imbalanced medical datasets: review of a decade of research. Artificial Intelligence Review. 2024; 57(10):1-57.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]