Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35220950›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022

Comparative analysis of explainable machine learning prediction models for hospital mortality.

Eline Stenwig, Giampiero Salvi, Pierluigi Salvo Rossi, Nils Kristian Skjærvold

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Prediction of prolonged length of stay from first 2 days of hospitalization data: a SHAP value-based variable selection method for a simplified model.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. [Nomogram and machine learning models for predicting in-hospital mortality in sepsis patients with deep vein thrombosis].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Eline StenwigDepartment of Circulation and Medical Imaging, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. eline.stenwig@ntnu.no.ORCID 0000-0002-3803-8106
Giampiero SalviDepartment of Electronic Systems, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Pierluigi Salvo RossiDepartment of Electronic Systems, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Nils Kristian SkjærvoldDepartment of Circulation and Medical Imaging, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning (ML) holds the promise of becoming an essential tool for utilising the increasing amount of clinical data available for analysis and clinical decision support. However, the lack of trust in the models has limited the acceptance of this technology in healthcare. This mistrust is often credited to the shortage of model explainability and interpretability, where the relationship between the input and output of the models is unclear. Improving trust requires the development of more transparent ML methods.

methodsIn this paper, we use the publicly available eICU database to construct a number of ML models before examining their internal behaviour with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values. Our four models predicted hospital mortality in ICU patients using a selection of the same features used to calculate the APACHE IV score and were based on random forest, logistic regression, naive Bayes, and adaptive boosting algorithms.

resultsThe results showed the models had similar discriminative abilities and mostly agreed on feature importance while calibration and impact of individual features differed considerably and did in multiple cases not correspond to common medical theory.

conclusionsWe already know that ML models treat data differently depending on the underlying algorithm. Our comparative analysis visualises implications of these differences and their importance in a healthcare setting. SHAP value analysis is a promising method for incorporating explainability in model development and usage and might yield better and more trustworthy ML models in the future.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMachine LearningBayes TheoremHospital MortalityHumansLogistic ModelseICUExplainabilityMachine learningMortality predictionSHAP values

Identifiers

PMID35220950
PMCPMC8882271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.