Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38820460›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Analysis and interpretability of machine learning models to classify thyroid disease.

Sumya Akter, Hossen A Mustafa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Sumya AkterInstitute of Information and Communication Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh.ORCID 0009-0003-4970-894X
Hossen A MustafaInstitute of Information and Communication Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thyroid disease classification plays a crucial role in early diagnosis and effective treatment of thyroid disorders. Machine learning (ML) techniques have demonstrated remarkable potential in this domain, offering accurate and efficient diagnostic tools. Most of the real-life datasets have imbalanced characteristics that hamper the overall performance of the classifiers. Existing data balancing techniques process the whole dataset at a time that sometimes causes overfitting and underfitting. However, the complexity of some ML models, often referred to as "black boxes," raises concerns about their interpretability and clinical applicability. This paper presents a comprehensive study focused on the analysis and interpretability of various ML models for classifying thyroid diseases. In our work, we first applied a new data-balancing mechanism using a clustering technique and then analyzed the performance of different ML algorithms. To address the interpretability challenge, we explored techniques for model explanation and feature importance analysis using eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) tools globally as well as locally. Finally, the XAI results are validated with the domain experts. Experimental results have shown that our proposed mechanism is efficient in diagnosing thyroid disease and can explain the models effectively. The findings can contribute to bridging the gap between adopting advanced ML techniques and the clinical requirements of transparency and accountability in diagnostic decision-making.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMachine LearningThyroid DiseasesCluster AnalysisHumans

Identifiers

PMID38820460
PMCPMC11142566

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.