ArticlePloS one2016
Explaining Support Vector Machines: A Color Based Nomogram.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- User-Centered Design and Implementation of an Interoperable FHIR Application for Pediatric Pneumonia Prognostication in a Randomized Trial.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Trial
- Construction of the prediction model and analysis of key winning factors in world women's volleyball using gradient boosting decision tree.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging Applications.Current pharmaceutical design · 2025Review
- Comprehensive analysis of anoikis-related gene signature in ulcerative colitis using machine learning algorithms.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Single-cell RNA-seq reveals T cell exhaustion and immune response landscape in osteosarcoma.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Explainability as the key ingredient for AI adoption in Industry 5.0 settings.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2023Article
- A comparative study between deep learning and radiomics models in grading liver tumors using hepatobiliary phase contrast-enhanced MR images.BMC medical imaging · 2022Article
- Comprehensive Pan-Cancer Analyses of Immunogenic Cell Death as a Biomarker in Predicting Prognosis and Therapeutic Response.Cancers · 2022Article
- Machine learning-assisted decision-support models to better predict patients with calculous pyonephrosis.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Article
- Identification of Diagnostic CpG Signatures in Patients with Gestational Diabetes MellitusBioMed research international · 2021Article
- Article
- Societal Issues Concerning the Application of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine.Kidney diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Balancing accuracy and interpretability of machine learning approaches for radiation treatment outcomes modeling.BJR open · 2019Review
- Machine Learning and Radiogenomics: Lessons Learned and Future Directions.Frontiers in oncology · 2018Review
- Making Expert Decisions Easier to Fathom: On the Explainability of Visual Object Recognition Expertise.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PROBLEM
settingSupport vector machines (SVMs) are very popular tools for classification, regression and other problems. Due to the large choice of kernels they can be applied with, a large variety of data can be analysed using these tools. Machine learning thanks its popularity to the good performance of the resulting models. However, interpreting the models is far from obvious, especially when non-linear kernels are used. Hence, the methods are used as black boxes. As a consequence, the use of SVMs is less supported in areas where interpretability is important and where people are held responsible for the decisions made by models.
objectiveIn this work, we investigate whether SVMs using linear, polynomial and RBF kernels can be explained such that interpretations for model-based decisions can be provided. We further indicate when SVMs can be explained and in which situations interpretation of SVMs is (hitherto) not possible. Here, explainability is defined as the ability to produce the final decision based on a sum of contributions which depend on one single or at most two input variables.
resultsOur experiments on simulated and real-life data show that explainability of an SVM depends on the chosen parameter values (degree of polynomial kernel, width of RBF kernel and regularization constant). When several combinations of parameter values yield the same cross-validation performance, combinations with a lower polynomial degree or a larger kernel width have a higher chance of being explainable.
conclusionsThis work summarizes SVM classifiers obtained with linear, polynomial and RBF kernels in a single plot. Linear and polynomial kernels up to the second degree are represented exactly. For other kernels an indication of the reliability of the approximation is presented. The complete methodology is available as an R package and two apps and a movie are provided to illustrate the possibilities offered by the method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.