ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
Fast Interpretable Greedy-Tree Sums.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpretable Machine Learning for Cross-Cohort Prediction of Motor Fluctuations in Parkinson's Disease.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2025Article
- Second opinion machine learning for fast-track pathway assignment in hip and knee replacement surgery: the use of patient-reported outcome measures.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- The Goldilocks paradigm: comparing classical machine learning, large language models, and few-shot learning for drug discovery applications.Communications chemistry · 2024Article
- A machine-learning algorithm using claims data to identify patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Augmenting interpretable models with large language models during training.Nature communications · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Modern machine learning has achieved impressive prediction performance, but often sacrifices interpretability, a critical consideration in high-stakes domains such as medicine. In such settings, practitioners often use highly interpretable decision tree models, but these suffer from inductive bias against additive structure. To overcome this bias, we propose Fast Interpretable Greedy-Tree Sums (FIGS), which generalizes the Classification and Regression Trees (CART) algorithm to simultaneously grow a flexible number of trees in summation. By combining logical rules with addition, FIGS adapts to additive structure while remaining highly interpretable. Experiments on real-world datasets show FIGS achieves state-of-the-art prediction performance. To demonstrate the usefulness of FIGS in high-stakes domains, we adapt FIGS to learn clinical decision instruments (CDIs), which are tools for guiding decision-making. Specifically, we introduce a variant of FIGS known as Group Probability-Weighted Tree Sums (G-FIGS) that accounts for heterogeneity in medical data. G-FIGS derives CDIs that reflect domain knowledge and enjoy improved specificity (by up to 20% over CART) without sacrificing sensitivity or interpretability. Theoretically, we prove that FIGS learns components of additive models, a property we refer to as disentanglement. Further, we show (under oracle conditions) that tree-sum models leverage disentanglement to generalize more efficiently than single tree models when fitted to additive regression functions. Finally, to avoid overfitting with an unconstrained number of splits, we develop Bagging-FIGS, an ensemble version of FIGS that borrows the variance reduction techniques of random forests. Bagging-FIGS performs competitively with random forests and XGBoost on real-world datasets.
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.