Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42069912›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Explainable artificial intelligence models using SHAP enhanced CatBoost, Bi-GRU with attention, and Tab Transformer.

Markapurapu John Dana Ebinezer, Bondalapu Chaitanya Krishna

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Markapurapu John Dana EbinezerDepartment of CSE, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation, Vaddeswaram, India. ebinezer.mjd@kluniversity.in.
Bondalapu Chaitanya KrishnaDepartment of CSE, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation, Vaddeswaram, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Insurance fraud detection remains challenging to predict in reality because claims data is often uneven among classes, and the information concerning claims is often multidimensional and nonhomogeneous. The present research used a unified evaluation framework to assess the predictive and interpretive capabilities of three distinct model families: CatBoost (tree-based ensemble learning), Bi-GRU with Attention (sequence-oriented learning), and TabTransformer (categorical feature contextual). The model families were tested using a standardised experimental protocol.The study is novel in the sense of a cross-model interpretability framework that unites Shapley Additive Explanation (SHAP)-based feature attribution with attention-based contextual analysis to enable a clear comparison of model reasoning between the suggested frameworks. The data on which the experiments were done consisted of 4,000 life insurance claims that were characterized in terms of 83 attributes. Common preprocessing procedures like missing values, scaling numerical variables, and selecting highly correlated variables were used before training the models. Experimentally, CatBoost is proven to be the most precise on legitimate claims, Bi-GRU is the most recall on fraudulent claims, and TabTransformer is the best in terms of tradeoff between accuracy, interpretability, and computational efficiency. Practical characteristics such as the quantity of claim, tenure in a policy, and diagnosis were repeatedly emphasized in both SHAP and attention analyses. Combined, the current research study provides a consistent and explainable benchmark that may be applied to conduct fraud detection research reliably and assist practitioners in choosing models that are accurate and understandable.

Indexed as

Bi-GRU with attentionCatBoostInsurance fraud detectionSHAP explainabilityTabTransformation

Identifiers

PMID42069912
PMCPMC13332054

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.