ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2023
Precision oncology: a review to assess interpretability in several explainable methods.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of malignant digestive tract tumors: focusing on opportunities and challenges in endoscopy and pathology.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Iron homeostasis landscape informs patient survival and neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in cancer.BioData mining · 2026Article
- Toward trustworthy artificial intelligence in multi-omics: a review of reproducibility, stability, and interpretability.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-based prognostic models in acute myeloid leukemia: systematic review and meta-analysis.Blood neoplasia · 2026Article
- Development and validation of machine learning models for predicting blastocyst yield in IVF cycles.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Explainable Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Drug Research.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.