ArticleEwha medical journal2025
Improving appendix cancer prediction with SHAP-based feature engineering for machine learning models: a prediction study.
Article in Ewha medical journal, 2025. 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.
- A leakage-controlled and SHAP driven machine learning framework for paediatric respiratory disease classification using Indian hospital EHR data.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Research on a machine learning-based predictive model for postoperative neurological dysfunction in acute Stanford type A aortic dissection.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Advanced Computational Modeling and Machine Learning for Risk Stratification, Treatment Optimization, and Prognostic Forecasting in Appendiceal Neoplasms.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Concurrent high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm and adenocarcinoma: a unique case report and literature review.Journal of surgical case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to leverage Shapley additive explanation (SHAP)-based feature engineering to predict appendix cancer. Traditional models often lack transparency, hindering clinical adoption. We propose a framework that integrates SHAP for feature selection, construction, and weighting to enhance accuracy and clinical relevance. Methods: Data from the Kaggle Appendix Cancer Prediction dataset (260,000 samples, 21 features) were used in this prediction study conducted from January through March 2025, in accordance with TRIPOD-AI guidelines. Preprocessing involved label encoding, SMOTE (synthetic minority over-sampling technique) to address class imbalance, and an 80:20 train-test split. Baseline models (random forest, XGBoost, LightGBM) were compared; LightGBM was selected for its superior performance (accuracy=0.8794). SHAP analysis identified key features and guided 3 engineering steps: selection of the top 15 features, construction of interaction-based features (e.g., chronic severity), and feature weighting based on SHAP values. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. Results: Four LightGBM model configurations were evaluated: baseline (accuracy=0.8794, F1-score=0.8691), feature selection (accuracy=0.8968, F1-score=0.8860), feature construction (accuracy=0.8980, F1-score=0.8872), and feature weighting (accuracy=0.8986, F1-score=0.8877). SHAP-based engineering yielded performance improvements, with feature weighting achieving the highest precision (0.9940). Key features (e.g., red blood cell count and chronic severity) contributed to predictions while maintaining interpretability. Conclusion: The SHAP-based framework substantially improved the accuracy and transparency of appendix cancer predictions using LightGBM (F1-score=0.8877). This approach bridges the gap between predictive power and clinical interpretability, offering a scalable model for rare disease prediction. Future validation with real-world data is recommended to ensure generalizability.
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.