Beyond Global Metrics: The U-Smile Method for Explainable, Interpretable, and Transparent Variable Selection in Risk Prediction Models
Source abstract
Abstract
Variable selection (VS) is a critical step in developing predictive binary classification (BC) models. Many traditional methods for assessing the added value of a candidate variable provide global performance summaries and lack an interpretable graphical summary of results. To address this limitation, we developed the U-smile method, a residual-based, post hoc evaluation approach for assessing prediction improvements and worsening separately for events and non-events. The U-smile method produces three families of interpretable BA-RB-I coefficients at three levels of generality and a standardized graphical summary through U-smile and prediction improvement–worsening (PIW) plots, enabling transparent, interpretable, and explainable VS. Validated in balanced and imbalanced BC scenarios, the method proved robust to class imbalance and collinearity, and more sensitive than traditional metrics in detecting subtle but meaningful effects. Moreover, the method’s intuitive visual output (U-smile plot) facilitates the rapid communication of results to non-technical stakeholders, bridging the gap between data science and applied decision-making. The U-smile method supports both local and global evaluations and complements existing explainable machine learning (XML) and artificial intelligence (XAI) tools without overlapping in their functions. The U-smile method offers a transparency-enhancing and human-oriented approach for ethical and fair VS, making it highly suited for high-stakes domains, e.g., healthcare and public health.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) · Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Computer Science and Statistics, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 60806 Poznań, Poland
Department of Public Health and Social Medicine, Medical University of Gdańsk, 80211 Gdansk, Poland
References (60)
Show source-provided references
1. Steyerberg, E.W. (2019). Clinical Prediction Models: A Practical Approach to Development, Validation, and Updating. Statistics for Biology and Health, Springer. [2nd ed.].10.1007/978-3-030-16399-0 ↗
2. Flach, P. (2012). Machine Learning: The Art and Science of Algorithms That Make Sense of Data, Cambridge University Press. [1st ed.].10.1017/CBO9780511973000 ↗
3. Clarke, B., and Clarke, J.L. (2018). Predictive Statistics: Analysis and Inference beyond Models. Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781139236003 ↗
4. Brownlee, J. (2020). Imbalanced Classification with Python: Better Metrics, Balance Skewed Classes, Cost-Sensitive Learning, Machine Learning Mastery.
5. Machine Learning: A Review on Binary Classification
6. Kubiak, K.B., Więckowska, B., Jodłowska-Siewert, E., and Guzik, P. (2024). Visualising and Quantifying the Usefulness of New Predictors Stratified by Outcome Class: The U-Smile Method. PLoS ONE, 19.10.1371/journal.pone.0303276 ↗
7. Więckowska, B., Kubiak, K.B., and Guzik, P. (2025). Evaluating the Three-Level Approach of the U-Smile Method for Imbalanced Binary Classification. PLoS ONE, 20.10.1371/journal.pone.0321661 ↗
8. A Historical Perspective of Explainable Artificial Intelligence10.1002/widm.1391 ↗
9. The Mythos of Model Interpretability: In Machine Learning, the Concept of Interpretability Is Both Important and Slippery10.1145/3236386.3241340 ↗
10. Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2016). Model-Agnostic Interpretability of Machine Learning. arXiv.
11. Doshi-Velez, F., and Kim, B. (2017). Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning. arXiv.
12. Wallace, B.C., and Dahabreh, I.J. (2012, January 10–13). Class Probability Estimates Are Unreliable for Imbalanced Data (and How to Fix Them). Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Data Mining, Brussels, Belgium.10.1109/ICDM.2012.115 ↗
13. Evaluation Metrics and Statistical Tests for Machine Learning
14. Variable Selection—A Review and Recommendations for the Practicing Statistician10.1002/bimj.201700067 ↗
15. Editorial: Special Issue on Learning from Imbalanced Data Sets10.1145/1007730.1007733 ↗
16. A Comparative Analysis on Recent Methods for Addressing Imbalance Classification10.1007/s42979-023-02357-0 ↗
17. Classification of imbalanced data: A review10.1142/S0218001409007326 ↗
18. Learning from Imbalanced Data10.1109/TKDE.2008.239 ↗
19. Learning from Class-Imbalanced Data: Review of Methods and Applications10.1016/j.eswa.2016.12.035 ↗
20. Improving Classification Performance for a Novel Imbalanced Medical Dataset Using SMOTE Method10.30534/ijatcse/2020/104932020 ↗
21. An Experimental Investigation of Calibration Techniques for Imbalanced Data10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3008150 ↗
22. Bellinger, C., Corizzo, R., and Japkowicz, N. (2020). ReMix: Calibrated Resampling for Class Imbalance in Deep Learning. arXiv.10.1007/978-3-030-88942-5_19 ↗
23. Calibrated Resampling for Imbalanced and Long-Tails in Deep Learning
24. Review of Classification Methods on Unbalanced Data Sets10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3074243 ↗
25. Assessing the Performance of Prediction Models: A Framework for Some Traditional and Novel Measures10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c30fb2 ↗
26. When Is a New Prediction Marker Useful?: A Consideration of Lipoprotein-Associated Phospholipase A2 and C-Reactive Protein for Stroke Risk10.1001/archinte.165.21.2454 ↗
27. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability10.1175/1520-0493(1950)078<0001:VOFEIT>2.0.CO;2 ↗
28. Evaluating the Added Predictive Ability of a New Marker: From Area under the ROC Curve to Reclassification and Beyond10.1002/sim.2929 ↗
29. F*: An Interpretable Transformation of the F-Measure10.1007/s10994-021-05964-1 ↗
30. Chicco, D., and Jurman, G. (2020). The Advantages of the Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) over F1 Score and Accuracy in Binary Classification Evaluation. BMC Genom., 21.10.1186/s12864-019-6413-7 ↗
31. Chicco, D., and Jurman, G. (2023). The Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) Should Replace the ROC AUC as the Standard Metric for Assessing Binary Classification. BioData Min., 16.10.1186/s13040-023-00322-4 ↗
32. The Use of the Area under the ROC Curve in the Evaluation of Machine Learning Algorithms10.1016/S0031-3203(96)00142-2 ↗
33. Is the Area under an ROC Curve a Valid Measure of the Performance of a Screening or Diagnostic Test?10.1177/0969141313517497 ↗
34. Use and Misuse of the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve in Risk Prediction10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.672402 ↗
35. Predictive Accuracy of Risk Factors and Markers: A Simulation Study of the Effect of Novel Markers on Different Performance Measures for Logistic Regression Models10.1002/sim.5598 ↗
36. Net Reclassification Indices for Evaluating Risk Prediction Instruments: A Critical Review10.1097/EDE.0000000000000018 ↗
37. A Note on the Evaluation of Novel Biomarkers: Do Not Rely on Integrated Discrimination Improvement and Net Reclassification Index10.1002/sim.5804 ↗
38. Net Risk Reclassification P Values: Valid or Misleading?10.1093/jnci/dju041 ↗
39. The Net Reclassification Index (NRI): A Misleading Measure of Prediction Improvement Even with Independent Test Data Sets10.1007/s12561-014-9118-0 ↗
40. The Brier Score Does Not Evaluate the Clinical Utility of Diagnostic Tests or Prediction Models10.1186/s41512-017-0020-3 ↗
41. Finding the Best Classification Threshold in Imbalanced Classification10.1016/j.bdr.2015.12.001 ↗
42. Statistical Methods for Validation of Predictive Models10.1007/s12350-022-02994-7 ↗
43. Performance Targets and the Brier Score10.1002/met.21 ↗
44. Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation10.1198/016214506000001437 ↗
45. Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Algorithms for Liver Disease Prediction: SVM, Logistic Regression, and Decision Tree10.9734/ajrcos/2024/v17i6467 ↗
46. Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x ↗
47. Janosi, A., Steinbrunn, W., Pfisterer, M., and Detrano, R. (2022, December 13). Heart Disease. Available online: https://archive.ics.uci.edu/dataset/45/heart+disease.
48. International Application of a New Probability Algorithm for the Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease10.1016/0002-9149(89)90524-9 ↗
49. Kelly, M., Longjohn, R., and Nottingham, K. (2022, December 13). The UCI Machine Learning Repository. Available online: https://archive.ics.uci.edu.
50. Lundberg, S.M., and Lee, S.-I. (2017). A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 30.
51. Antwarg, L., Miller, R.M., Shapira, B., and Rokach, L. (2019). Explaining Anomalies Detected by Autoencoders Using SHAP. arXiv.
52. Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2016). Why Should I Trust You?: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. arXiv.10.18653/v1/N16-3020 ↗
53. Kearns, M.J. (1990). The Computational Complexity of Machine Learning, MIT Press.
54. Długosz, R., Banach, M., and Kubiak, K. (2019, January 1–4). Positioning Improving of RSU Devices Used in V2I Communication in Intelligent Transportation System. Proceedings of the Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Leipzig, Germany.10.15439/2019F288 ↗
55. Kubiak, K., Banach, M., and Długosz, R. (2019, January 26–29). Calculation of Descriptive Statistics by Devices with Low Computational Resources for Use in Calibration of V2I System. Proceedings of the 2019 24th International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics (MMAR), Międzyzdroje, Poland.10.1109/MMAR.2019.8864633 ↗
56. Kubiak, K., and Długosz, R. (2019, January 27–29). Trade-Offs and Other Challenges in CMOS Implementation of Parallel FIR Filters. Proceedings of the 2019 MIXDES—26th International Conference Mixed Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, Rzeszow, Poland.10.23919/MIXDES.2019.8787154 ↗
57. Interpretable and Explainable Machine Learning: A Methods-centric Overview with Concrete Examples10.1002/widm.1493 ↗
58. Sakuragi, M., Uchino, E., Sato, N., Matsubara, T., Ueda, A., Mineharu, Y., Kojima, R., Yanagita, M., and Okuno, Y. (2024). Interpretable Machine Learning-Based Individual Analysis of Acute Kidney Injury in Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy. PLoS ONE, 19.10.1371/journal.pone.0298673 ↗
59. Cox, M., Panagides, J.C., Tabari, A., Kalva, S., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., and Daye, D. (2022). Risk Stratification with Explainable Machine Learning for 30-Day Procedure-Related Mortality and 30-Day Unplanned Readmission in Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease. PLoS ONE, 17.10.1371/journal.pone.0277507 ↗
60. Shapley Value-Based Approaches to Explain the Quality of Predictions by Classifiers10.1109/TAI.2024.3365082 ↗