Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 63 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 49 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 14 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 19 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 100 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 174 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 472 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 37 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Attention-based Saliency Maps Improve Interpretability of Pneumothorax Classification (2303.01871v1)

Published 3 Mar 2023 in eess.IV and cs.CV

Abstract: Purpose: To investigate chest radiograph (CXR) classification performance of vision transformers (ViT) and interpretability of attention-based saliency using the example of pneumothorax classification. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, ViTs were fine-tuned for lung disease classification using four public data sets: CheXpert, Chest X-Ray 14, MIMIC CXR, and VinBigData. Saliency maps were generated using transformer multimodal explainability and gradient-weighted class activation mapping (GradCAM). Classification performance was evaluated on the Chest X-Ray 14, VinBigData, and SIIM-ACR data sets using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis (AUC) and compared with convolutional neural networks (CNNs). The explainability methods were evaluated with positive/negative perturbation, sensitivity-n, effective heat ratio, intra-architecture repeatability and interarchitecture reproducibility. In the user study, three radiologists classified 160 CXRs with/without saliency maps for pneumothorax and rated their usefulness. Results: ViTs had comparable CXR classification AUCs compared with state-of-the-art CNNs 0.95 (95% CI: 0.943, 0.950) versus 0.83 (95%, CI 0.826, 0.842) on Chest X-Ray 14, 0.84 (95% CI: 0.769, 0.912) versus 0.83 (95% CI: 0.760, 0.895) on VinBigData, and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.847, 0.861) versus 0.87 (95% CI: 0.868, 0.882) on SIIM ACR. Both saliency map methods unveiled a strong bias toward pneumothorax tubes in the models. Radiologists found 47% of the attention-based saliency maps useful and 39% of GradCAM. The attention-based methods outperformed GradCAM on all metrics. Conclusion: ViTs performed similarly to CNNs in CXR classification, and their attention-based saliency maps were more useful to radiologists and outperformed GradCAM.

Citations (19)
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-Up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.