Medical artificial intelligence toolbox (MAIT): an explainable machine learning framework for binary classification, survival modelling, and regression analyses

Anne Svane Frahm; Daniel Dawson Murray; Jens Lundgren; Maja Milojevic; Ramtin Zargari Marandi

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Medical artificial intelligence toolbox (MAIT): an explainable machine learning framework for binary classification, survival modelling, and regression analyses

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The Medical Artificial Intelligence Toolbox claims a first: survival-model outputs are translated into binary classes, letting survival and classification models be compared head-to-head on the same data.

desk verdict MAIT is a real, useful open-source pipeline for tabular clinical ML, but its central survival-to-binary translation is an unvalidated heuristic and the paper overclaims novelty. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04547 v1 pith:2XKI3I2E submitted 2025-01-08 cs.LG

Ramtin Zargari Marandi , Anne Svane Frahm , Jens Lundgren , Daniel Dawson Murray , Maja Milojevic This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords medicalartificialintelligenceexplainablemachinelearningbinaryclassificationsurvivalanalysisregressiontabulardatacumulativehazardcurvesTRIPOD+AI

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

MAIT is an open-source Python pipeline that packages binary classification, survival analysis, and regression for tabular medical data into one explainable workflow. The paper's central claim is that MAIT is the first tool to translate a survival model's predicted cumulative hazard curves into binary class labels, by measuring each test sample's Euclidean distance to median hazard curves of the two training classes. That translation lets researchers compare a time-to-event model against its binary classification counterpart with the same metrics, confusion matrix, and feature-importance rankings. It also adds practical machinery: probability-threshold fine-tuning, semi-supervised handling of censored labels, cost-sensitive decision curves, and multi-level SHAP-driven interpretation. If the claim holds, MAIT gives clinical researchers a lower-barrier route to ask whether treating an outcome as time-to-event versus a binary label changes the answer.

What carries the argument

The central object is the predicted cumulative hazard curve, and the load-bearing mechanism is the translation step that compresses each curve into a binary class. For each class, MAIT forms a median curve from non-censored training samples; a test sample's predicted curve is assigned to whichever class median it is closer to under Euclidean distance. This is the component that lets survival models and binary classifiers share evaluation metrics and feature-importance rankings, and it is the part of the pipeline the paper presents as unique.

What would settle it

Take a dataset with known event times and true binary outcomes, split it into training and test sets, fit a survival model, and use MAIT's median-curve Euclidean-distance rule to label the test set. If the resulting labels and AUC track the true classes no better than chance for a high-censoring setting, or if the translated labels systematically assign censored high-risk patients to the event-free class, the translation claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is a mechanism for making survival and binary classification models commensurable on one dataset. Starting from a survival model such as a random survival forest or a penalized Cox model, MAIT generates cumulative hazard curves for every sample in the development set. It then computes a median cumulative hazard curve for each outcome class using only non-censored training samples. For each test-set sample, the predicted curve is assigned to the class whose median curve is closest in Euclidean distance. This 'hazard-to-class' mapping yields binary predictions from a survival model, so the survival model can be scored with a confusion matrix, ROC analysis, and the same feature-importance machinery as a classifier. The authors argue this unification is unique and clinically useful because a hazard curve alone is less actionable than a class label, and because direct comparison exposes whether the modeling choice changes the conclusions.

Load-bearing premise

The whole translation rests on the assumption that the median cumulative hazard curve from non-censored training samples represents each class well and that Euclidean distance in cumulative hazard space is the right way to judge which class a new patient belongs to; the paper offers no theoretical or benchmark justification for that equivalence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Researchers can fit a survival model and a binary classifier on the same dataset and compare them directly by AUC, confusion matrix, and feature importance, revealing whether censoring-aware modeling changes clinical conclusions.
A survival model's output becomes an actionable binary label, so a predicted hazard curve can be translated into the kind of decision a clinician would use.
Feature-importance rankings from survival and classification models can be placed side by side, giving a unified discovery view of which variables drive both types of outcome.
The pipeline automates many TRIPOD+AI reporting steps, which could make medical ML studies easier to report transparently and consistently.
Censored patients need not be dropped: semi-supervised label propagation can relabel lost-to-follow-up cases, and the survival component keeps full censoring information.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The median-curve translation could be tested as a general bridge between any survival model and any classifier; a benchmark against inverse-censoring-weighted classifiers would show whether the distance rule preserves the survival model's risk ordering.
Euclidean distance in cumulative hazard space is an unexamined choice; comparing it with area-between-curves or Wasserstein metrics would establish whether class assignments change under alternative similarity measures.
If the translation is unbiased, it could double as a consistency check: a survival model's binary labels should align with a well-calibrated classifier's probabilities, giving a diagnostic for model disagreement.
The same hazard-to-class mapping might let researchers pool studies that report either binary or time-to-event outcomes, because both can be reduced to comparable class predictions.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

MAIT is a genuine piece of software: a Jupyter-notebook pipeline that wraps binary classification, survival, and regression with preprocessing, SHAP interpretation, and TRIPOD+AI-aligned reporting, all in an open GitHub repo with tutorials on four public datasets. That part is solid and useful for applied medical ML groups.

What's genuinely new is the survival-to-binary translation: converting cumulative hazard curves from a survival model into binary class assignments by Euclidean distance to pointwise median curves of each class from the training set. That's an interesting idea, and I don't know of an off-the-shelf tool that does it. But the paper gives no theoretical or empirical justification. No benchmark on the tutorial data, no comparison to a standard binary classifier trained on the same endpoint, no sensitivity analysis. The stress-test note is correct: censored patients are excluded from the reference medians, which can bias the references under informative censoring, and the binary endpoint definition isn't aligned to the curve time range. So the "unique solution" claim is currently unsupported.

Also, the paper claims MAIT is "more efficient than AutoML" and "less prone to bias" in Table 1, without any measurements. Those are marketing phrases, not results. The four "new" techniques are incremental heuristics, and the paper doesn't quantify their value.

Soft spots in proportion: the software itself appears functional; the code is available; the tutorials show real outputs. The missing benchmark is the main problem, and it's fixable. A single tutorial dataset with a proper comparison — same data, same split, survival model vs. binary classifier, with the translation evaluated by AUC or MCC — would settle it. A pinned version of the repo would also help reproducibility.

Who's it for: applied researchers who want a ready-made, explainable pipeline for tabular clinical data and don't mind a monolithic notebook. It deserves a serious referee, because the toolkit is useful and the survival-to-binary idea is worth testing. But the referee should ask for validation before acceptance.

My recommendation: send it to peer review, leaning conditional. Require a benchmark of the translation step and tone down the AutoML claims.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MAIT, an open-source Python/Jupyter pipeline for binary classification, survival analysis, and regression on tabular medical data. It describes a modular workflow covering data quality checks, imputation, feature selection, model training with seven classifiers and two survival/regression models, hyperparameter tuning, class-imbalance handling, and extensive SHAP-based interpretability. The authors claim novelty in four techniques: fine-tuning the probability threshold, translation of cumulative hazard curves to binary classification via distance to class-specific median curves, enhanced visualizations for mixed data types, and censoring handling via label-propagation semi-supervised learning. The paper provides no quantitative performance comparison against baselines or between the proposed translation and any reference method; it refers to GitHub tutorials on four public datasets as demonstrations.

Significance. If the survival-to-binary translation is valid and the pipeline is reliable, MAIT could be a useful contribution for clinical researchers who want to compare survival and binary models in one environment with interpretability. The paper is a software description rather than a methods paper with novel learning algorithms, so the significance hinges on whether the claimed integration is both new and correct. The authors do provide public code, Docker images, and tutorial notebooks, which is a concrete strength for reproducibility. However, the central novelty is the unvalidated heuristic translation of cumulative hazard curves to binary classes; without evidence that this translation yields meaningful classifications (e.g., agreement with a standard binary endpoint model or improved decision-making), the claimed 'unique solution' remains an assertion rather than a demonstrated result.

major comments (3)

[Survival analysis] The survival-to-binary translation is the paper's central claimed novelty, but it is presented only as a heuristic: median cumulative hazard curves from non-censored training samples are computed for each class, and test samples are assigned by minimum Euclidean distance in cumulative hazard space. No theoretical justification or empirical validation is provided for why Euclidean distance to pointwise medians is a valid similarity measure under censoring, why non-censored samples only are representative if censoring is informative, or how the binary endpoint (e.g., event within one year) aligns with the time range of the curves. Since this translation underpins the 'unique solution' claim, the manuscript should include a benchmark or at least a comparison of translated survival-model classifications against the binary classification model's predictions on the same test set, for one or more of the tutorial datasets. Without such evidence, the claim is unsupported.
[Strengths and limitations, 'MAIT vs. AutoML'] The paper repeatedly asserts that MAIT is 'more efficient' and 'less prone to bias' than AutoML frameworks, but no comparative runtime, performance, or robustness experiments are reported. These claims are not substantiated by any data in the manuscript or the referenced tutorials. At minimum, the authors should either remove or soften these comparative claims or provide a small benchmark (e.g., runtime and AUC/MCC on the tutorial datasets) against a standard AutoML tool such as H2O AutoML, which is cited.
[Binary classification, 'probability threshold'] The proposed probability-threshold fine-tuning procedure is described only briefly: the mean predicted probability for each class is computed per fold, the median of previous folds' thresholds is used, and the initial threshold is the minority-class proportion. The statistical rationale for this estimator is not given, and no comparison to other threshold-selection methods (e.g., Youden's J or cost-based optimization) is provided. Since this is listed as a novel technique, it should be evaluated, at least by showing that it improves calibration or decision metrics on a tutorial dataset.

minor comments (4)

[Pipeline initiation] The description of label propagation for censoring (semi-supervised learning) lacks details on how it is integrated with the survival and binary tasks; a few sentences on when and how this option is invoked would improve clarity.
[Survival analysis] The text says 'RSF is favored over CPH for its ability to capture nonlinear information and feature interactions,' but no quantitative comparison between the two on any dataset is shown; this statement should be framed as a design choice rather than an empirical result.
[Benchmarking report and exporting] The HTML report and output figures are mentioned, but the paper does not describe the structure of the report or list which tables and figures are included; a brief overview would help readers assess the tool's reporting capabilities.
[Strengths and limitations, Table 1] Some listed strengths are generic (e.g., 'Data Quality & Robustness') and are not operationalized; consider providing concrete options or thresholds so readers can verify these claims from the code.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; MAIT is a software-framework paper whose survival-to-binary translation is a stated heuristic, not a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper does not present a derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs. Its central methodological novelty is the translation of predicted cumulative hazard curves into binary classifications by computing per-class median curves from non-censored training samples and assigning test samples by Euclidean distance. This is explicitly described as a proposed technique rather than a theorem, and it is a standard nearest-centroid-style classification rule applied to a transformed representation of survival-model outputs. The class labels used to build the reference medians come from the training data, and the test-set assignments are then evaluated against held-out labels; this is conventional supervised evaluation, not circular. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction: the threshold optimization, hyperparameter tuning, and cross-validation procedures are all internally consistent and are not presented as independent predictions of quantities they were fit to. The paper does cite prior work by the same authors (references 5, 22, and 23), but those citations support incidental methodological points (longitudinal data context, performance metrics, SHAP-based clustering) and are not load-bearing for the uniqueness claim or for any derivation. The uniqueness claim itself is an assertion of novelty, not a result derived from equations; overstatement or lack of external validation of the distance-to-median heuristic is a correctness and evidence concern, not circularity. Therefore the paper receives a score of 0, with no specific circular steps identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim of MAIT's utility rests on standard ML assumptions and two ad-hoc heuristics: label propagation for censoring and Euclidean-distance-based survival-to-binary translation. None of the ad-hoc heuristics are validated in the paper, and the standard assumptions are not tested on the heterogeneous medical datasets the toolbox targets.

free parameters (2)

SHAP significance IQR threshold = data-driven (5% bootstrap)
Used to decide which features are statistically significant; derived from bootstrap subsampling rather than from a theory.
Binary classification probability threshold = estimated from cross-validation folds
The paper's proposed threshold optimization sets the initial value to the minority class proportion and adjusts using fold medians; this is a fitted value that affects model predictions.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Cross-validation on the development set estimates performance on the unseen test set.
Standard supervised learning assumption, not proven for the diverse datasets MAIT targets.
domain assumption SHAP values are a valid measure of feature importance for all model types in MAIT.
SHAP has known limitations (e.g., correlated features, tree estimator variability), but the paper treats it as ground truth for interpretation.
ad hoc to paper Label propagation can correctly re-label censored instances in semi-supervised learning.
Proposed in MAIT for handling censoring; no evidence that the relabeled data improves model performance or reduces bias.
ad hoc to paper Euclidean distance to median cumulative hazard curves yields valid binary classification.
The core novel technique; no theoretical or empirical validation.
ad hoc to paper Euclidean distance in cumulative hazard space is a meaningful similarity metric for survival curves.
Assumed without justification; different survival curves may have similar cumulative hazards at specific time points.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Medical artificial intelligence toolbox (MAIT): an explainable machine learning framework for binary classification, survival modelling, and regression analyses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2XKI3I2E

@misc{pith2026250104547,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Medical artificial intelligence toolbox (MAIT): an explainable machine learning framework for binary classification, survival modelling, and regression analyses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2XKI3I2E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04547}
}

read the original abstract

While machine learning offers diverse techniques suitable for exploring various medical research questions, a cohesive synergistic framework can facilitate the integration and understanding of new approaches within unified model development and interpretation. We therefore introduce the Medical Artificial Intelligence Toolbox (MAIT), an explainable, open-source Python pipeline for developing and evaluating binary classification, regression, and survival models on tabular datasets. MAIT addresses key challenges (e.g., high dimensionality, class imbalance, mixed variable types, and missingness) while promoting transparency in reporting (TRIPOD+AI compliant). Offering automated configurations for beginners and customizable source code for experts, MAIT streamlines two primary use cases: Discovery (feature importance via unified scoring, e.g., SHapley Additive exPlanations - SHAP) and Prediction (model development and deployment with optimized solutions). Moreover, MAIT proposes new techniques including fine-tuning of probability threshold in binary classification, translation of cumulative hazard curves to binary classification, enhanced visualizations for model interpretation for mixed data types, and handling censoring through semi-supervised learning, to adapt to a wide set of data constraints and study designs. We provide detailed tutorials on GitHub, using four open-access data sets, to demonstrate how MAIT can be used to improve implementation and interpretation of ML models in medical research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Datasheets for AI and medical datasets (DAIMS): a data validation and documentation framework before machine learning analysis in medical research
cs.LG 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

DAIMS provides a checklist, data dictionary template, and ML-method flowchart to standardize medical dataset documentation and validation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

& Kohane, I

Rajkomar, A., Dean, J. & Kohane, I. Machine Learning in Medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 380, 1347–1358 13 (2019)

work page 2019
[2]

Niazi, S. K. The coming of age of AI/ML in drug discovery, development, clinical testing, and manufacturing: The FDA Perspectives. Drug Des. Devel. Ther. 17, 2691–2725 (2023)

work page 2023
[3]

& Fiocco, M

Kantidakis, G., Putter, H., Litière, S. & Fiocco, M. Statistical models versus machine learning for competing risks: development and validation of prognostic models. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 23, 51 (2023)

work page 2023
[4]

Ke, G. et al. LightGBM: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017)

2017
[5]

Zargari Marandi, R. et al. Pre-Transplant Prediction of Acute Graft-versus-Host Disease Using the Gut Microbiome. Cells 11, 4089 (2022)

2022
[6]

Collins, G. S. et al. TRIPOD+ AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods. bmj 385, (2024)

work page 2024
[7]

& Fiore-Gartland, B

Crisan, A. & Fiore-Gartland, B. Fits and starts: Enterprise use of automl and the role of humans in the loop. in Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on human factors in computing systems 1–15 (2021)

work page 2021
[8]

Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011)

2011

Show all 36 references

[9]

& Ghahramani, Z

Zhu, X. & Ghahramani, Z. Learning from labeled and unlabeled data with label propagation. Technical Report CMU-CALD-02-107 (2002)

2002
[10]

Bernett, J. et al. Guiding questions to avoid data leakage in biological machine learning applications. Nat. Methods 21, 1444–1453 (2024)

2024
[11]

M., Veen, D

Schat, E., van de Schoot, R., Kouw, W. M., Veen, D. & Mendrik, A. M. The data representativeness criterion: Predicting the performance of supervised classification based on data set similarity. PLoS One 15, e0237009 (2020)

2020
[12]

T., Ting, K

Liu, F. T., Ting, K. M. & Zhou, Z.-H. Isolation-based anomaly detection. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. from Data 6, 1–39 (2012)

2012
[13]

V., Ershov, V

Dorogush, A. V., Ershov, V. & Gulin, A. CatBoost: gradient boosting with categorical features support. (2018)

2018
[14]

C., Long, F

Peng, H. C., Long, F. H. & Ding, C. Feature selection based on mutual information: Criteria of max- dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 27, 1226– 1238 (2005)

2005
[15]

Random Forest

Breiman, L. Random Forest. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001)

2001
[16]

Broløs, K. R. et al. An Approach to Symbolic Regression Using Feyn. (2021)

2021
[17]

& Jenkins, M

Villalobos-Arias, L., Quesada-López, C., Guevara-Coto, J., Martínez, A. & Jenkins, M. Evaluating hyper-parameter tuning using random search in support vector machines for software effort estimation. in Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on predictive models a...

2020
[18]

Lee, S.-I., Lee, H., Abbeel, P. & Ng, A. Y. Efficient L1 regularized logistic regression. in Aaai vol. 6 401– 408 (2006). 14

2006
[19]

Wynants, L. et al. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19 infection: systematic review and critical appraisal. bmj 369, (2020)

2020
[20]

& El-Anbari, M

Boughorbel, S., Jarray, F. & El-Anbari, M. Optimal classifier for imbalanced data using Matthews Correlation Coefficient metric. PLoS One 12, e0177678 (2017)

2017
[21]

& Jurman, G

Chicco, D. & Jurman, G. The advantages of the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) over F1 score and accuracy in binary classification evaluation. BMC Genomics 21, 6 (2020)

2020
[22]

Zargari Marandi, R. et al. Development of a machine learning model for early prediction of plasma leakage in suspected dengue patients. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 17, e0010758 (2023)

2023
[23]

ExplaineR: an R package to explain machine learning models

Zargari Marandi, R. ExplaineR: an R package to explain machine learning models. Bioinforma. Adv. 4, vbae049 (2024)

2024
[24]

Vickers, A. J. & Elkin, E. B. Decision curve analysis: A novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med. Decis. Mak. (2006) doi:10.1177/0272989X06295361

2006 doi
[25]

scikit-survival: A Library for Time-to-Event Analysis Built on Top of scikit-learn

Pölsterl, S. scikit-survival: A Library for Time-to-Event Analysis Built on Top of scikit-learn. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 21, 1–6 (2020)

2020
[26]

S., Gaillard, C

Fernandez, C., Chen, C. S., Gaillard, C. P. & Silva, A. Experimental Comparison of Ensemble Methods and Time-to-Event Analysis Models Through Integrated Brier Score and Concordance Index. arXiv Prepr. arXiv2403.07460 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[27]

& Biecek, P

Krzyziński, M., Spytek, M., Baniecki, H. & Biecek, P. SurvSHAP (t): time-dependent explanations of machine learning survival models. Knowledge-Based Syst. 262, 110234 (2023)

2023
[28]

& Street, W

Wolberg, W., Mangasarian, O., Street, N. & Street, W. Diagnostic Wisconsin Breast Cancer Database. UCI Machine Learning Repository (1993) doi:10.24432/C5DW2B

1993 doi
[29]

& Amenta, F

Battineni, G., Chintalapudi, N. & Amenta, F. Machine learning in medicine: Performance calculation of dementia prediction by support vector machines (SVM). Informatics Med. Unlocked 16, 100200 (2019)

2019
[30]

Jaillard, M. et al. A fast and agnostic method for bacterial genome-wide association studies: Bridging the gap between k-mers and genetic events. PLoS Genet. 14, e1007758 (2018)

2018
[31]

& Poirier, S

LeDell, E. & Poirier, S. H2o automl: Scalable automatic machine learning. in Proceedings of the AutoML Workshop at ICML vol. 2020 (2020)

2020
[32]

& Kalinowski, M

Azevedo, K., Quaranta, L., Calefato, F. & Kalinowski, M. A Multivocal Literature Review on the Benefits and Limitations of Automated Machine Learning Tools. arXiv Prepr. arXiv2401.11366 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[33]

Deo, R. C. Machine learning in medicine. Circulation 132, 1920–1930 (2015)

2015
[34]

Li, J. J. & Tong, X. Statistical hypothesis testing versus machine learning binary classification: Distinctions and guidelines. Patterns 1, (2020)

2020
[35]

V, Bowyer, K

Chawla, N. V, Bowyer, K. W., Hall, L. O. & Kegelmeyer, W. P. SMOTE: synthetic minority over- sampling technique. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 16, 321–357 (2002)

2002
[36]

& Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K

Van Buuren, S. & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J. Stat. Softw. 45, 1–67 (2011)

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

& Kohane, I

Rajkomar, A., Dean, J. & Kohane, I. Machine Learning in Medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 380, 1347–1358 13 (2019)

work page 2019

[2] [2]

Niazi, S. K. The coming of age of AI/ML in drug discovery, development, clinical testing, and manufacturing: The FDA Perspectives. Drug Des. Devel. Ther. 17, 2691–2725 (2023)

work page 2023

[3] [3]

& Fiocco, M

Kantidakis, G., Putter, H., Litière, S. & Fiocco, M. Statistical models versus machine learning for competing risks: development and validation of prognostic models. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 23, 51 (2023)

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Ke, G. et al. LightGBM: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017)

2017

[5] [5]

Zargari Marandi, R. et al. Pre-Transplant Prediction of Acute Graft-versus-Host Disease Using the Gut Microbiome. Cells 11, 4089 (2022)

2022

[6] [6]

Collins, G. S. et al. TRIPOD+ AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods. bmj 385, (2024)

work page 2024

[7] [7]

& Fiore-Gartland, B

Crisan, A. & Fiore-Gartland, B. Fits and starts: Enterprise use of automl and the role of humans in the loop. in Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on human factors in computing systems 1–15 (2021)

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011)

2011