Search alternatives:
marked decrease » marked increase (Expand Search)
large decrease » larger decrease (Expand Search), large increases (Expand Search), large degree (Expand Search)
shap decrease » step decrease (Expand Search), small decrease (Expand Search), mean decrease (Expand Search)
teer decrease » mean decrease (Expand Search), greater decrease (Expand Search)
marked decrease » marked increase (Expand Search)
large decrease » larger decrease (Expand Search), large increases (Expand Search), large degree (Expand Search)
shap decrease » step decrease (Expand Search), small decrease (Expand Search), mean decrease (Expand Search)
teer decrease » mean decrease (Expand Search), greater decrease (Expand Search)
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
SHAP waterfall plot.
Published 2025“…Across 10 models, CatBoost performed best on the test set (AUC = 0.970, accuracy = 0.920, F1 = 0.918), with robust calibration and decision-curve net benefit. SHAP interpretation ranked eGDR among the most influential predictors: SHAP summary and dependence plots indicated that higher eGDR decreased the model’s predicted probability of frailty. …”
-
12
SHAP decision plot.
Published 2025“…Across 10 models, CatBoost performed best on the test set (AUC = 0.970, accuracy = 0.920, F1 = 0.918), with robust calibration and decision-curve net benefit. SHAP interpretation ranked eGDR among the most influential predictors: SHAP summary and dependence plots indicated that higher eGDR decreased the model’s predicted probability of frailty. …”
-
13
SHAP dependence plots.
Published 2025“…Across 10 models, CatBoost performed best on the test set (AUC = 0.970, accuracy = 0.920, F1 = 0.918), with robust calibration and decision-curve net benefit. SHAP interpretation ranked eGDR among the most influential predictors: SHAP summary and dependence plots indicated that higher eGDR decreased the model’s predicted probability of frailty. …”
-
14
-
15
-
16
-
17
-
18
-
19
-
20