Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38619534›Full record

ArticleJournal of environmental science and health. Part C, Toxicology and carcinogenesis2024

PERform: assessing model performance with predictivity and explainability readiness formula.

Leihong Wu, Joshua Xu, Weida Tong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of environmental science and health. Part C, Toxicology and carcinogenesis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Leihong WuDivision of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA, Jefferson, AR, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4093-3708
Joshua XuDivision of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA, Jefferson, AR, USA.
Weida TongDivision of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA, Jefferson, AR, USA.

Funding

Intramural FDA HHS FD999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence (AI), explainability has been traditionally assessed in a post-modeling process and is often subjective. In contrary, many quantitative metrics have been routinely used to assess a model's performance. We proposed a unified formular named PERForm, by incorporating explainability as a weight into the existing statistical metrics to provide an integrated and quantitative measure of both predictivity and explainability to guide model selection, application, and evaluation. PERForm was designed as a generic formula and can be applied to any data types. We applied PERForm on a range of diverse datasets, including DILIst, Tox21, and three MAQC-II benchmark datasets, using various modeling algorithms to predict a total of 73 distinct endpoints. For example, AdaBoost algorithms exhibited superior performance (PERForm AUC for AdaBoost is 0.129 where Linear regression is 0) in DILIst prediction, where linear regression outperformed other models in the majority of Tox21 endpoints (PERForm AUC for linear regression is 0.301 where AdaBoost is 0.283 in average). This research marks a significant step toward comprehensively evaluating the utility of an AI model to advance transparency and interpretability, where the tradeoff between a model's performance and its interpretability can have profound implications.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceHumansModels, StatisticalModels, Theoreticalexplainable artificial intelligencepredictive modelingQuantitative explainability measurementXAI

Identifiers

PMID38619534
PMCPMC11664459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.