ArticleMolecular informatics2025
Comparing Explanations of Molecular Machine Learning Models Generated with Different Methods for the Calculation of Shapley Values.
Article in Molecular informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Binary interaction parameters of a million mixtures for PCP-SAFT using deep learning.Digital discovery · 2026Article
- Classification of Alcohol Use Disorder With Explainable AI.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2026Article
- Explainable artificial intelligence for molecular design in pharmaceutical research.Chemical science · 2026Review
- An explainable machine learning framework integrating clinical and lipidomic signatures for early severity stratification of hypertriglyceridemic pancreatitis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparing Explanations of Molecular Machine Learning Models Generated with Different Methods for the Calculation of Shapley Values.Molecular informatics · 2025Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Feature attribution methods from explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) provide explanations of machine learning models by quantifying feature importance for predictions of test instances. While features determining individual predictions have frequently been identified in machine learning applications, the consistency of feature importance-based explanations of machine learning models using different attribution methods has not been thoroughly investigated. We have systematically compared model explanations in molecular machine learning. Therefore, a test system of highly accurate compound activity predictions for different targets using different machine learning methods was generated. For these predictions, explanations were computed using methodological variants of the Shapley value formalism, a popular feature attribution approach in machine learning adapted from game theory. Predictions of each model were assessed using a model-agnostic and model-specific Shapley value-based method. The resulting feature importance distributions were characterized and compared by a global statistical analysis using diverse measures. Unexpectedly, methodological variants for Shapley value calculations yielded distinct feature importance distributions for highly accurate predictions. There was only little agreement between alternative model explanations. Our findings suggest that feature importance-based explanations of machine learning predictions should include an assessment of consistency using alternative methods.
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.