ArticleDiscover oncology2026
Construction of an explainable machine learning model based on SHAP for predicting cardiovascular mortality risk among American cancer survivors.
Article in Discover 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) continues to be a leading cause of death globally. Cancer survivors experience a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular mortality owing to shared risk factors with CVD; however, dedicated predictive tools for this specific population are currently lacking.
methodsUsing data from 3622 cancer survivors in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), we constructed a predictive model for cardiovascular mortality risk by integrating five machine learning algorithms: Random Survival Forest (RSF), Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), LASSO-penalized Cox regression (LASSO + Cox), CoxBoost, and Survival Support Vector Machine (SVM). The SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) interpretability framework was employed to enhance model explainability. Predictors were selected via univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses, and a nomogram was derived from the results of LASSO regression. To foster clinical translation, the optimal model was implemented as an openly accessible, interactive web-based tool named “CardioRisk-CA” (Cardiovascular Risk Calculator for Cancer Survivors). External validation was conducted using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to assess the generalizability of the model.
resultsThe GBM demonstrated the highest predictive performance in the validation dataset (Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curve (AUC) = 0.935, Harrell’s concordance index (C-index) = 0.914). Key predictive variables included age, C-reactive protein (CRP), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), history of stroke, coronary heart disease, heart failure, sex, and marital status. SHAP analysis identified interaction effects between age and stroke, coronary heart disease, and heart failure. The nomogram achieved an AUC of 0.868, indicating strong clinical utility. Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed significant survival differences between high-risk and low-risk groups (P < 0.001). The web-based tool generates interpretable, individualized risk assessments for clinicians and provides researchers to perform external validation with their own datasets. In external validation using the SEER cohort, the GBM model continued to show robust discriminative capability (C-index = 0.815, AUC = 0.866).
conclusionThe developed machine learning model predicts cardiovascular mortality risk in cancer survivors with SHAP-based interpretability. Deployed as an accessible web-based tool, it fosters individualized risk management and facilitates multicenter validation.
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.