ArticleVascular health and risk management2026
Explainable Machine Learning for Risk Prediction of Reduced Quality of Life in Hypertension.
Article in Vascular health and risk management, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Individuals with hypertension are at risk to reduced quality of life (QoL). Explainable machine learning (ML) can be used for domain-specific risk stratification and prioritization of modifiable determinants of low QoL. Objective: To train ML classifier algorithms for QoL risk stratification in hypertension, where meaningful determinants were explored through Shapley additive explanations (SHAP). Methods: Data from hypertensive individuals (n = 534) completed WHOQOL BREF, Quick Physical Activity Rating, Morisky Medication Adherence Scale 8, and standardized questionnaires for acceptance and knowledge were analyzed utilizing Decision Tree, Gradient Boosting, XGBoost, AdaBoost, Random Forest, and Naive Bayes ML classifiers. The trained ML algorithms were evaluated using stratified 10-fold cross-validation, where the stability was examined using rank-based metrics. SHAP were applied to the gradient boosting, as the most stable model. Results: For physical QoL, Random Forest (AUC 0.850; sensitivity 0.835; specificity 0.738) and Gradient Boosting (AUC 0.850; sensitivity 0.801; specificity 0.764) showed good reduced QoL identification. For psychological domain, best classifications were obtained from Gradient Boosting performed best (AUC 0.833; sensitivity 0.818; specificity 0.651) and XGBoost (AUC 0.831; sensitivity 0.824; specificity 0.660), with the former observed as the most stable SHAP analysis identified acceptance and medication adherence as the dominant shared drivers of risk across both QoL domains. Physical QoL risk was further influenced by physical activity-related factors, whereas Psychological QoL risk showed additional contributions from age and educational attainment. Conclusion: Ensemble tree-based classifiers, particularly Gradient Boosting, had the most optimal performance in discriminating reduced and good QoL. Acceptance and medication adherence are the most influential shared drivers of risk, while physical activity, age, and educational attainment contributed to domain-specific heterogeneity.
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.