Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Explainable machine learning (XAI) was introduced in this study to improve the interpretability, explainability and transparency of the modelling results. The survex package in R was used to interpret and compare two survival models - the Cox proportional hazards regression (coxph) model and the random survival forest (rfsrc) model - and to estimate overall survival (OS) and its determinants in heart failure (HF) patients using these models. METHODS: We selected 1159 HF patients hospitalised at the First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University. First, the performance of the two models was investigated using the C-index, the integrated C/D AUC, and the integrated Brier score. Second, a global explanation of the whole cohort was carried out using the time-dependent variable importance and the partial dependence survival profile. Finally, the SurvSHAP(t) and SurvLIME plots and the ceteris paribus survival profile were used to obtain a local explanation for each patient. RESULTS: By comparing the C-index, the C/D AUC, and the Brier score, this study showed that the model performance of rfsrc was better than coxph. The global explanation of the whole cohort suggests that the C-reactive protein, lg BNP (brain natriuretic peptide), estimated glomerular filtration rate, albumin, age and blood chloride were significant unfavourable predictors of OS in HF patients in both the cxoph and the rfsrc models. By including individual patients in the model, we can provide a local explanation for each patient, which guides the clinician in individualising the patient's treatment. CONCLUSION: By comparison, we conclude that the model performance of rfsrc is better than that of coxph. These two predictive models, which address not only the whole population but also selected patients, can help clinicians personalise the treatment of each HF patient according to his or her specific situation.