4.6 Article

Visualizing Risk Prediction Models

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132614

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Research Council KUL (GOA MaNet) [PFV/10/002]
  2. Flemish Government (Research Foundation Flanders (FWO)) [G049312N]
  3. Flemish Government (Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT)) [IWT-TBM 070706-IOTA3]
  4. Flemish Government (iMinds)
  5. Belgian Federal Science Policy Office IUAP P7 (DYSCO, Dynamical systems, control and optimization)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective Risk prediction models can assist clinicians in making decisions. To boost the uptake of these models in clinical practice, it is important that end-users understand how the model works and can efficiently communicate its results. We introduce novel methods for interpretable model visualization. Methods The proposed visualization techniques are applied to two prediction models from the Framingham Heart Study for the prediction of intermittent claudication and stroke after atrial fibrillation. We represent models using color bars, and visualize the risk estimation process for a specific patient using patient-specific contribution charts. Results The color-based model representations provide users with an attractive tool to instantly gauge the relative importance of the predictors. The patient-specific representations allow users to understand the relative contribution of each predictor to the patient's estimated risk, potentially providing insightful information on which to base further patient management. Extensions towards non-linear models and interactions are illustrated on an artificial dataset. Conclusion The proposed methods summarize risk prediction models and risk predictions for specific patients in an alternative way. These representations may facilitate communication between clinicians and patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available