Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Source content · Analysis pending2 min read

Evaluating LLM-Generated Rules for Heart Disease Prediction

Summary

arXiv:2609.13192v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This study compares traditional machine learning models and Large Language Model (LLM)-generated rule-based systems for heart disease prediction using the UCI Heart Disease dataset. Several classifiers, including Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Naive Bayes, Decision Tree, and Random Forest, were evaluated alongside rule-based systems generated using GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet 4.6. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score metrics. Experimental results show that traditional machine learning models consistently outperform LLM-generated rule-based systems in predictive performance. Random Forest achieved the best overall performance with 90.2% accuracy, a precision…

SourcearXiv Machine LearningAuthor: Feisal Alaswad, Batoul Aljaddouh, Maher Alrahhal, Wafaa Al Nassan, Talal Bonn
Evaluating LLM-Generated Rules for Heart Disease Prediction
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 11 Aug 2026]

Title:Evaluating LLM-Generated Rules for Heart Disease Prediction

View a PDF of the paper titled Evaluating LLM-Generated Rules for Heart Disease Prediction, by Feisal Alaswad and 4 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:This study compares traditional machine learning models and Large Language Model (LLM)-generated rule-based systems for heart disease prediction using the UCI Heart Disease dataset. Several classifiers, including Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Naive Bayes, Decision Tree, and Random Forest, were evaluated alongside rule-based systems generated using GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet 4.6. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score metrics. Experimental results show that traditional machine learning models consistently outperform LLM-generated rule-based systems in predictive performance. Random Forest achieved the best overall performance with 90.2% accuracy, a precision of 0.829, perfect recall of 1.0, and an F1-score of 0.906. Naive Bayes followed closely with 88.5% accuracy and an F1-score of 0.881. In contrast, the LLM-generated rule models achieved lower performance, with Claude Sonnet 4.6 reaching 80.3% accuracy (F1-score: 0.833) and GPT-4o obtaining 70.5% accuracy (F1-score: 0.690). Despite the performance gap, the LLM-generated rules provide interpretable IF-THEN diagnostic logic that enhances explainability and transparency in clinical decision-making. These findings highlight the trade-off between predictive performance and interpretability in medical artificial intelligence systems. The complete implementation of all experiments, including machine learning models and LLM-derived rule classifiers, is publicly available in the GitHub repository at this https URL .

Subjects:

Machine Learning (cs.LG)

Cite as: arXiv:2609.13192 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2609.13192v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.13192

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Feisal Alaswad [view email] [v1] Tue, 11 Aug 2026 17:39:01 UTC (1,201 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Evaluating LLM-Generated Rules for Heart Disease Prediction, by Feisal Alaswad and 4 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.LG

new | recent | 2026-09

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

IArxiv recommender toggle

IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2609.13192v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This study compares traditional machine learning models and Large Language Model (LLM)-generated rule-based systems for heart disea…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.