ReviewBiometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift2025
Interpretable Machine Learning for Survival Analysis.
Review in Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine learning-assisted mRNA vaccine pharmacovigilance: a systematic review of multi-source real-world data.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Pooled it
- Interpretable Machine Learning for Survival Analysis.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2025Review
- SurvBoard: standardized benchmarking for multi-omics cancer survival models.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- CoxKAN: Kolmogorov-Arnold networks for interpretable, high-performance survival analysis.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Machine learning for identification of restless legs syndrome-associated factors and classification model development in end-stage renal disease patients.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
With the spread and rapid advancement of black box machine learning (ML) models, the field of interpretable machine learning (IML) or explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has become increasingly important over the last decade. This is particularly relevant for survival analysis, where the adoption of IML techniques promotes transparency, accountability, and fairness in sensitive areas, such as clinical decision-making processes, the development of targeted therapies, interventions, or in other medical or healthcare-related contexts. More specifically, explainability can uncover a survival model's potential biases and limitations and provide more mathematically sound ways to understand how and which features are influential for prediction or constitute risk factors. However, the lack of readily available IML methods may have deterred practitioners from leveraging the full potential of ML for predicting time-to-event data. We present a comprehensive review of the existing work on IML methods for survival analysis within the context of the general IML taxonomy. In addition, we formally detail how commonly used IML methods, such as individual conditional expectation (ICE), partial dependence plots (PDP), accumulated local effects (ALE), different feature importance measures, or Friedman's H-interaction statistics can be adapted to survival outcomes. An application of several IML methods to data on breast cancer recurrence in the German Breast Cancer Study Group (GBSG2) serves as a tutorial or guide for researchers, on how to utilize the techniques in practice to facilitate understanding of model decisions or predictions.
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.