ArticleJAMIA open2026
Trustworthy artificial intelligence in predictive medicine: cancer survival analysis using ethical-by-design and explainable artificial intelligence models.
Article in JAMIA open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to develop and evaluate a trustworthy and ethical-by-design machine learning (ML) framework for predicting 5-year cancer survival across 10 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer types. We assessed ML model(s) performance across localized, regional, and distant stages while examining ML fairness, ML explainability, and the added value of social determinants of health (SDOH) as features. The goal is to advance clinically interpretable and equity-centered survival prediction models suitable for translational use in health systems. Materials and Methods: Utilizing SEER Research Plus data, we built stage-stratified cohorts and defined a binary 5-year survival outcome. Four ML models were trained as follows: (1) base clinical models and (2) fairness-enhanced models incorporating SDOH features. Performance was evaluated using AUC and accuracy. Machine learning model(s) trustworthiness was assessed through SHapley Additive exPlanations and Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations and fairness auditing via Equalized Odds Difference across different subgroups. Results: XGBoost showed the strongest discrimination across cancer types, and adding SDOH features generally maintained or modestly improved performance. Fairness evaluations revealed minimal to moderate bias across most SDOH strata, with larger disparities in specific cancer-stage cases. Machine learning explainability analysis demonstrated that clinical variables remained the primary predictors, while SDOH features added interpretable contextual risk without displacing core prognostic factors. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that trustworthy and ethical-by-design artificial intelligence for cancer survival prediction is achievable through a unified, explainable, and fairness-aware ML framework. Incorporating SDOH features enhances equity insights without diminishing predictive performance. The proposed framework offers a clinically meaningful and ethically aligned approach for precision medicine and population health applications.
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.