Abstract
Coronary artery disease (CAD) presents a significant global health burden, with early and accurate diagnostics crucial for effective management and treatment strategies. This study evaluates the efficacy of human evaluators compared to a Random Forest (RF) machine learning model in predicting CAD risk. It investigates the impact of incorporating human clinical judgments into the RF model's predictive capabilities. We recruited 606 patients from the Department of Nuclear Medicine at the University Hospital of Patras, Greece, from 16 February 2018 to 28 February 2022. Clinical data inputs included age, sex, comprehensive cardiovascular history (including prior myocardial infarction and revascularisation), CAD predisposing factors (such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking, diabetes, and peripheral arteriopathy), baseline ECG abnormalities, and symptomatic descriptions ranging from asymptomatic states to angina-like symptoms and dyspnea on exertion. The diagnostic accuracies of human evaluators and the RF model (when trained with datasets inclusive of human judges' assessments) were comparable at 79% and 80.17%, respectively. However, the performance of the RF model notably declined to 73.76% when human clinical judgments were excluded from its training dataset. These results highlight a potential synergistic relationship between human expertise and advanced algorithmic predictions, suggesting a hybrid approach as a promising direction for enhancing CAD diagnostics.