Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39463176›Full record

ReviewClinical and translational science2024

Practical guide to SHAP analysis: Explaining supervised machine learning model predictions in drug development.

Ana Victoria Ponce-Bobadilla, Vanessa Schmitt, Corinna S Maier, Sven Mensing, Sven Stodtmann

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 346 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
346citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

346 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Machine learning-based prediction models for severeFrontiers in public health · 2026
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational

286 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Ana Victoria Ponce-BobadillaAbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Ludwigshafen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0959-4058
Vanessa SchmittAbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Ludwigshafen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4268-6306
Corinna S MaierAbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Sven MensingAbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Ludwigshafen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9434-647X
Sven StodtmannAbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Ludwigshafen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7986-4447

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite increasing interest in using Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) models for drug development, effectively interpreting their predictions remains a challenge, which limits their impact on clinical decisions. We address this issue by providing a practical guide to SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), a popular feature-based interpretability method, which can be seamlessly integrated into supervised ML models to gain a deeper understanding of their predictions, thereby enhancing their transparency and trustworthiness. This tutorial focuses on the application of SHAP analysis to standard ML black-box models for regression and classification problems. We provide an overview of various visualization plots and their interpretation, available software for implementing SHAP, and highlight best practices, as well as special considerations, when dealing with binary endpoints and time-series models. To enhance the reader's understanding for the method, we also apply it to inherently explainable regression models. Finally, we discuss the limitations and ongoing advancements aimed at tackling the current drawbacks of the method.

Indexed as

Drug DevelopmentSupervised Machine LearningHumansSoftware

Identifiers

PMID39463176
PMCPMC11513550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.