Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36204043›Full record

ArticleCommunications medicine2022

Interpretable machine learning prediction of all-cause mortality.

Wei Qiu, Hugh Chen, Ayse Berceste Dincer, Scott Lundberg, Matt Kaeberlein, Su-In Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Toward practical screening of mortality risk: Insights from interpretable machine learning in NHANES.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors.

Wei QiuPaul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8246-6901
Hugh ChenPaul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA.
Ayse Berceste DincerPaul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA.
Scott LundbergMicrosoft Research, Redmond, WA USA.
Matt KaeberleinDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA.
Su-In LeePaul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA.

Funding

University of Washington Nathan Shock Center of Excellence in the Basic Biology of AgingP30AG013280 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Michael MacCoss · 1995 to 2026
$27.1M
Interpretable Machine Learning to Identify Alzheimer's Disease Therapeutic TargetsR01AG061132 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI LEE, SU-IN · 2019 to 2023
$2.9M
Emergent properties of signaling network degradation that mediate homeostatic failure during agingR01AG056359 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI KAEBERLEIN, MATT, VILLEN, JUDIT · 2017 to 2021
$2.9M
Opening the Black Box of Machine Learning ModelsR35GM128638 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI LEE, SU-IN · 2018 to 2022
$1.9M
Medical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_QA137853NIA NIH HHS P30 AG013280NIA NIH HHS R01 AG061132NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM128638
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Unlike linear models which are traditionally used to study all-cause mortality, complex machine learning models can capture non-linear interrelations and provide opportunities to identify unexplored risk factors. Explainable artificial intelligence can improve prediction accuracy over linear models and reveal great insights into outcomes like mortality. This paper comprehensively analyzes all-cause mortality by explaining complex machine learning models. Methods: We propose the IMPACT framework that uses XAI technique to explain a state-of-the-art tree ensemble mortality prediction model. We apply IMPACT to understand all-cause mortality for 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year follow-up times within the NHANES dataset, which contains 47,261 samples and 151 features. Results: We show that IMPACT models achieve higher accuracy than linear models and neural networks. Using IMPACT, we identify several overlooked risk factors and interaction effects. Furthermore, we identify relationships between laboratory features and mortality that may suggest adjusting established reference intervals. Finally, we develop highly accurate, efficient and interpretable mortality risk scores that can be used by medical professionals and individuals without medical expertise. We ensure generalizability by performing temporal validation of the mortality risk scores and external validation of important findings with the UK Biobank dataset. Conclusions: IMPACT's unique strength is the explainable prediction, which provides insights into the complex, non-linear relationships between mortality and features, while maintaining high accuracy. Our explainable risk scores could help individuals improve self-awareness of their health status and help clinicians identify patients with high risk. IMPACT takes a consequential step towards bringing contemporary developments in XAI to epidemiology.

Indexed as

Computational biology and bioinformaticsEpidemiologyPrognostic markers

Identifiers

PMID36204043
PMCPMC9530124

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.