ArticleScientific reports2024
Explainable text-tabular models for predicting mortality risk in companion animals.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The influence, promise, and potential perils of artificial intelligence in veterinary medicine: a call for improved awareness and literacy.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- Assessment of reproductive performance in dairy cows using explainable machine learning.Archives animal breeding · 2026Article
- Comprehensive representation of health-related phenotypes in one million dogs using topic modelling of electronic health records.Journal of big data · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As interest in using machine learning models to support clinical decision-making increases, explainability is an unequivocal priority for clinicians, researchers and regulators to comprehend and trust their results. With many clinical datasets containing a range of modalities, from the free-text of clinician notes to structured tabular data entries, there is a need for frameworks capable of providing comprehensive explanation values across diverse modalities. Here, we present a multimodal masking framework to extend the reach of SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to text and tabular datasets to identify risk factors for companion animal mortality in first-opinion veterinary electronic health records (EHRs) from across the United Kingdom. The framework is designed to treat each modality consistently, ensuring uniform and consistent treatment of features and thereby fostering predictability in unimodal and multimodal contexts. We present five multimodality approaches, with the best-performing method utilising PetBERT, a language model pre-trained on a veterinary dataset. Utilising our framework, we shed light for the first time on the reasons each model makes its decision and identify the inclination of PetBERT towards a more pronounced engagement with free-text narratives compared to BERT-base's predominant emphasis on tabular data. The investigation also explores the important features on a more granular level, identifying distinct words and phrases that substantially influenced an animal's life status prediction. PetBERT showcased a heightened ability to grasp phrases associated with veterinary clinical nomenclature, signalling the productivity of additional pre-training of language models.
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.