Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37253690›Full record

ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2023

Precision oncology: a review to assess interpretability in several explainable methods.

Marian Gimeno, Katyna Sada Del Real, Angel Rubio

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Explainable Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Drug Research.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025
    Review
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

3 authors.

Marian GimenoDepartamento de Ingeniería Biomédica y Ciencias, TECNUN, Universidad de Navarra, 20009, San Sebastián, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0756-3055
Katyna Sada Del RealDepartamento de Ingeniería Biomédica y Ciencias, TECNUN, Universidad de Navarra, 20009, San Sebastián, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7634-7962
Angel RubioDepartamento de Ingeniería Biomédica y Ciencias, TECNUN, Universidad de Navarra, 20009, San Sebastián, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3274-2450

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Great efforts have been made to develop precision medicine-based treatments using machine learning. In this field, where the goal is to provide the optimal treatment for each patient based on his/her medical history and genomic characteristics, it is not sufficient to make excellent predictions. The challenge is to understand and trust the model's decisions while also being able to easily implement it. However, one of the issues with machine learning algorithms-particularly deep learning-is their lack of interpretability. This review compares six different machine learning methods to provide guidance for defining interpretability by focusing on accuracy, multi-omics capability, explainability and implementability. Our selection of algorithms includes tree-, regression- and kernel-based methods, which we selected for their ease of interpretation for the clinician. We also included two novel explainable methods in the comparison. No significant differences in accuracy were observed when comparing the methods, but an improvement was observed when using gene expression instead of mutational status as input for these methods. We concentrated on the current intriguing challenge: model comprehension and ease of use. Our comparison suggests that the tree-based methods are the most interpretable of those tested.

Indexed as

Medical OncologyNeoplasmsAlgorithmsFemaleGenomicsHumansMachine LearningMaleassignment problemdrug recommendationexplainable artificial intelligenceinterpretabilitymachine learningmethod comparisonprecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID37253690
PMCPMC10359088

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.