The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effect of Data Scaling Methods on Machine Learning Algorithms and Model Performance
Open accessAbstract
Heart disease, one of the main reasons behind the high mortality rate around the world, requires a sophisticated and expensive diagnosis process. In the recent past, much literature has demonstrated machine learning approaches as an opportunity to efficiently diagnose heart disease patients. However, challenges associated with datasets such as missing data, inconsistent data, and mixed data (containing inconsistent missing data both as numerical and categorical) are often obstacles in medical diagnosis. This inconsistency led to a higher probability of misprediction and a misled result. Data preprocessing steps like feature reduction, data conversion, and data scaling are employed to form a standard dataset—such measures play a crucial role in reducing inaccuracy in final prediction. This paper aims to evaluate eleven machine learning (ML) algorithms—Logistic Regression (LR), Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Classification and Regression Trees (CART), Naive Bayes (NB), Support Vector Machine (SVM), XGBoost (XGB), Random Forest Classifier (RF), Gradient Boost (GB), AdaBoost (AB), Extra Tree Classifier (ET)—and six different data scaling methods—Normalization (NR), Standscale (SS), MinMax (MM), MaxAbs (MA), Robust Scaler (RS), and Quantile Transformer (QT) on a dataset comprising of information of patients with heart disease. The result shows that CART, along with RS or QT, outperforms all other ML algorithms with 100% accuracy, 100% precision, 99% recall, and 100% F1 score. The study outcomes demonstrate that the model’s performance varies depending on the data scaling method.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Identification of significant features and data mining techniques in predicting heart disease
Amin, M. S., Chiam, Y. K., & Varathan, K. D. (2019) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2018.11.007 · Cited by 528
Cited by
Machine-learning-based disease diagnosis: a comprehensive review
Ahsan, M. M., Luna, S. A., & Siddique, Z. (2022) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare10030541 · Cited by 603
Self-citationIslam, M. M., Rifat, H. R., Shahid, M. S. B., Akhter, A., Uddin, M. A., & Uddin, K. M. M. (2025) · Engineering Reports · doi:10.1002/eng2.13080 · Cited by 41
Bonci, A., Fredianelli, L., Kermenov, R., Longarini, L., Longhi, S., Pompei, G., Prist, M., & Verdini, C. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14198686 · Cited by 16
AI-enabled Parkinson's disease screening using smile videos
Adnan, T., Islam, M. S., Lee, S., Wasifur Rahman Chowdhury, E. M., Tithi, S. D., Noshin, K., Islam, M. R., Sarker, I., Rahman, M. S., Schneider, R. B., et al. (2025) · NEJM AI · doi:10.1056/aioa2400950 · Cited by 5
Anomaly Detection Method Considering PLC Control Logic Structure for ICS Cyber Threat Detection
Lee, J. H., Ji, I. H., Jeon, S. H., & Seo, J. T. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app15073507 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Ahsan, M., Mahmud, M., Saha, P., Gupta, K., & Siddique, Z.
- Venue
- Technologies
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2021-07-24
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 52
- ISSN
- 2227-7080 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3185256938
- Cited by
- 744
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 74.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of Data Scaling Methods on Machine Learning Algorithms and Model Performance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/technologies9030052
- The paper
- Ahsan, M., Mahmud, M., Saha, P., Gupta, K., & Siddique, Z. (2021). Effect of Data Scaling Methods on Machine Learning Algorithms and Model Performance. Technologies. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies9030052
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.