Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37268685›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Machine learning explainability in nasopharyngeal cancer survival using LIME and SHAP.

Rasheed Omobolaji Alabi, Mohammed Elmusrati, Ilmo Leivo, Alhadi Almangush, Antti A Mäkitie

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
31.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 136 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. A pan-cancer multi-omicFrontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Rasheed Omobolaji AlabiResearch Program in Systems Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. rasheed.alabi@helsinki.fi.
Mohammed ElmusratiDepartment of Industrial Digitalization, School of Technology and Innovations, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland.
Ilmo LeivoInstitute of Biomedicine, Pathology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Alhadi AlmangushResearch Program in Systems Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Antti A MäkitieResearch Program in Systems Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Karolinska Institutet · SEMisurata University · LYUniversity of Helsinki · FIUniversity of Turku · FIUniversity of Vaasa · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) has a unique histopathology compared with other head and neck cancers. Individual NPC patients may attain different outcomes. This study aims to build a prognostic system by combining a highly accurate machine learning model (ML) model with explainable artificial intelligence to stratify NPC patients into low and high chance of survival groups. Explainability is provided using Local Interpretable Model Agnostic Explanations (LIME) and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) techniques. A total of 1094 NPC patients were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for model training and internal validation. We combined five different ML algorithms to form a uniquely stacked algorithm. The predictive performance of the stacked algorithm was compared with a state-of-the-art algorithm-extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) to stratify the NPC patients into chance of survival groups. We validated our model with temporal validation (n = 547) and geographic external validation (Helsinki University Hospital NPC cohort, n = 60). The developed stacked predictive ML model showed an accuracy of 85.9% while the XGBoost had 84.5% after the training and testing phases. This demonstrated that both XGBoost and the stacked model showed comparable performance. External geographic validation of XGBoost model showed a c-index of 0.74, accuracy of 76.7%, and area under curve of 0.76. The SHAP technique revealed that age of the patient at diagnosis, T-stage, ethnicity, M-stage, marital status, and grade were among the prominent input variables in decreasing order of significance for the overall survival of NPC patients. LIME showed the degree of reliability of the prediction made by the model. In addition, both techniques showed how each feature contributed to the prediction made by the model. LIME and SHAP techniques provided personalized protective and risk factors for each NPC patient and unraveled some novel non-linear relationships between input features and survival chance. The examined ML approach showed the ability to predict the chance of overall survival of NPC patients. This is important for effective treatment planning care and informed clinical decisions. To enhance outcome results, including survival in NPC, ML may aid in planning individualized therapy for this patient population.

Indexed as

Nasopharyngeal NeoplasmsArtificial IntelligenceCalcium CompoundsHumansMachine LearningNasopharyngeal CarcinomaOxidesReproducibility of ResultsCalcium CompoundslimeOxides

Identifiers

PMID37268685
PMCPMC10238539
OpenAlexW4379197104

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.