ArticleScientific reports2025
Interpretable ensemble learning for tumor-type prediction with a SHAP-based evaluation of CatBoost and voting classifiers.
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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- DeepFusion-ACSM: an interpretable hybrid ML-DL ensemble model for anticancer small-molecule activity prediction.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and validation of prediction model for intrapulmonary metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma based on machine learning.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate early-stage diagnosis of tumours is crucial for improving patient prognosis. Modern machine learning techniques provide advanced and effective tools to support this process. In this study, both base classifiers and ensemble models were compared in the task of predicting tumour type from morphometric data. Particular attention was given to the CatBoost model as well as the Voting and Stacking classifiers. Model performance was evaluated comprehensively using standard diagnostic metrics and confusion matrices. To enhance interpretability, the SHAP framework was employed to assess the contribution of individual features to model predictions. The CatBoost model stood out due to its ability to provide explainable results through feature importance analysis and SHAP values, which highlighted the key role of parameters related to tumour size and border irregularity. The Voting Classifier improved stability and reduced variance, significantly lowering the number of false negative errors - a factor of particular clinical importance in oncological diagnostics. The Stacking Classifier achieved the highest overall predictive performance, minimising both false positive and false negative classifications by integrating heterogeneous base learners with a meta-classifier. The findings of this study confirm that interpretable ensemble methods represent a valuable approach to supporting the diagnostic process in neuro-oncology. The methodology applied here not only increases the reliability and transparency of artificial intelligence systems but also demonstrates potential for application in treatment monitoring and in predicting the risk of tumour recurrence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.