Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40703369›Full record

ArticleEwha medical journal2025

Improving appendix cancer prediction with SHAP-based feature engineering for machine learning models: a prediction study.

Ji Yoon Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

1 author.

Ji Yoon KimEwha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0009-0008-0830-8495

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsAppendiceal neoplasmsMachine learningRandom forest

Identifiers

PMID40703369
PMCPMC12277501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.