ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2026
Hypothesis Generation via Interpretable Machine Learning: A Case Study on Risk Factors for Postradiation Therapy Lung Cancer Recurrence.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Interpretability is highly desirable for oncologic outcome prediction, as it increases the level of transparency and trustworthiness of the model. This model characteristic is particularly relevant in the setting of modest sample size. Existing work has focused on Shapley Additive Explanations to provide post-hoc explanations on black-box models. These models are not intrinsically interpretable. In this study, we investigated the applicability of an intrinsically interpretable glass-box model, Explainable Boosting Machine (EBM), for hypothesis generation from an early-stage lung cancer data set. Methods and Materials: We applied EBM to a stripped data set on postradiation therapy lung cancer recurrence, aiming to extract as much information as possible by using pristine EBM configurations. We compared the key features ranked by EBM with those identified through univariate statistical analysis. Additionally, we benchmarked its performance against logistic regression and random forest models, while also evaluating the hypotheses generated by EBM. This study was approved by an institutional review board at the University of Pennsylvania. Results: EBM identified primary tumor size and body mass index as the most prognostic features, aligning with the results of the univariate analysis. Its interpretability provides safeguards against misinterpretation; the model revealed potential age-related bias in this single-arm data set and possible confounding interactions between race and body mass index. EBM yielded competitive performances and more interpretable insights compared with logistic regression and random forest but was not immune from generalizability challenges arising from limited data. Conclusions: The modest performance prevents EBM from being used as a clinical decision support tool, when applied to limited data. However, its interpretable, glass-box nature makes it useful for hypothesis generation.
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.