ArticleScientific reports2025
Survival machine learning models for predicting all-cause and case-specific mortality risk in metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep sequence learning with multi-task supervision for scalable population health monitoring.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
Emerging evidence links metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) with increased all-cause and circulatory system disease (CSD) mortality in adults, yet survival machine learning studies are limited. This study analyzed 4415 NHANES participants with MAFLD to predict mortality using five survival models, and further, the optimal models were selected to identify the most significant predictors of mortality. Machine learning models proved highly effective in prediction. The Gradient Boosted Survival (GBS) model performed best for all-cause mortality, while Extra Survival Trees (EST) excelled for CSD mortality. The Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) analyses revealed that the five clinical factors most strongly associated with all-cause mortality were age, gender, platelet count, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and smoking status. For CSD mortality, the key factors associated with increased risk were age, blood urea nitrogen, systolic blood pressure, history of heart attack, and gender. Subgroup analyses confirmed GBS and Cox proportional hazard (CoxPH) were optimal for middle-aged and older all-cause mortality, whereas Elastic Net-regularized Cox proportional hazard (CoxNet) was best for older CSD mortality. The findings demonstrate that survival machine learning models effectively predict mortality risk in MAFLD patients. Integrating these models with permutation importance and SHAP provides transparent insights into individual risk profiles, enabling clinicians to clearly interpret how key variables contribute to predictions and improve risk stratification.
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.