ArticleDigital health
Interpretable artificial intelligence (AI) for cervical cancer risk analysis leveraging stacking ensemble and expert knowledge.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- Uncertainty-aware and interpretable deep learning in cytopathology: toward trustworthy AI-powered diagnostics.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Review
- YOLO with Kolmogorov-Arnold networks and vision-language foundation models for interpretable object detection with trustworthy multimodal AI in computer vision perception.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Transforming cervical cancer pathological diagnosis through artificial intelligence: progress, performance, and barriers to clinical implementation.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- A hybrid ensemble approach for diabetes prediction using consensus-based feature selection.Digital healthArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study develops a machine learning (ML)-based cervical cancer prediction system emphasizing explainability. A hybrid feature selection method is proposed to enhance predictive accuracy and stability, alongside evaluation of multiple classification algorithms. The integration of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques ensures transparency and interpretability in model decisions. Methods: A hybrid feature selection approach combining correlation-based selection and recursive feature elimination is introduced. An ensemble model integrating random forest, extreme gradient boosting, and logistic regression is compared against eight classical ML algorithms. Generative artificial intelligence methods, such as variational autoencoders and generative teaching networks, were evaluated but showed suboptimal performance. The research integrates global and local XAI techniques, including individual feature contributions and tree-based explanations, to interpret model decisions. The effects of feature selection and data balancing on classification performance are examined to stabilize precision, recall, and F1 scores. Classical ML models without preprocessing achieve 95-96% accuracy but exhibit instability. Results: The proposed feature selection and data balancing strategies significantly enhance classification stability, creating a robust predictive model. The ensemble model achieves 98% accuracy with an area under the curve of 99.50%, outperforming other models. Domain experts validate critical contributing features, confirming practical relevance. Incorporating domain knowledge with XAI techniques significantly increases transparency, making predictions interpretable and trustworthy for clinical use. Conclusion: Hybrid feature selection combined with ensemble learning substantially improves cervical cancer prediction accuracy and reliability. The integration of XAI techniques ensures transparency, supporting interpretability and trustworthiness, demonstrating significant potential in clinical decision-making.
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.