ArticlePloS one2026
Lung cancer risk prediction using interpretable ensemble models on lifestyle and clinical data.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung cancer remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality worldwide, where early detection and reliable risk assessment are critical for improving outcomes. This study develops and evaluates a range of ensemble learning models for lung cancer prediction using lifestyle and clinical indicators, with an emphasis on both predictive performance and interpretability. Five base learners-logistic regression, k-nearest neighbors, naïve Bayes, support vector machine, and linear discriminant analysis-were used to construct multiple boosting and bagging models. Building on these, voting and stacking ensembles were designed by selectively combining high-performing models. All approaches were evaluated on the original dataset as well as on balanced and upsampled variants derived through synthetic augmentation. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), and AUC-ROC. The results show that ensemble approaches consistently outperform individual models, with voting and stacking demonstrating superior performance over boosting and bagging methods. The stacking model achieved the strongest overall performance across all evaluated models. On the original dataset, which provides a more realistic representation of practical deployment conditions, it attained an accuracy of 93.53%. Performance further improved on the balanced and upsampled datasets on the upsampled dataset. To enhance transparency, SHAP and LIME were employed to provide global and local interpretability, respectively, enabling identification of key clinical factors and patient-specific risk drivers. The analysis highlights both alignment with known clinical patterns and dataset-driven variations, supporting informed interpretation of model outputs. The results suggest that stacking-based ensembles can improve risk prediction from lifestyle and clinical indicators while maintaining model transparency through SHAP and LIME explanations. These findings highlight the potential of interpretable ensemble learning as a decision-support tool for lung cancer risk assessment.
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.