Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33227719›Full record

ReviewPhysics in medicine and biology2021

Interpretation and visualization techniques for deep learning models in medical imaging.

Daniel T Huff, Amy J Weisman, Robert Jeraj

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Physics in medicine and biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Deep learning-based histopathological classification and subclassification of benign and malignant salivary gland tumors.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Daniel T HuffDepartment of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9792-4119
Amy J WeismanDepartment of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5230-7782
Robert JerajDepartment of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, United States of America.

Funding

UW COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER SUPPORTP30CA014520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI AMY TRENTHAM-DIETZ · 1985 to 2026
$142.6M
U.W. RADIOLOGICAL SCIENCES TRAINING PROGRAMT32CA009206 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Bryan Patrick Bednarz · 1985 to 2026
$12.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014520NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009206
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep learning (DL) approaches to medical image analysis tasks have recently become popular; however, they suffer from a lack of human interpretability critical for both increasing understanding of the methods' operation and enabling clinical translation. This review summarizes currently available methods for performing image model interpretation and critically evaluates published uses of these methods for medical imaging applications. We divide model interpretation in two categories: (1) understanding model structure and function and (2) understanding model output. Understanding model structure and function summarizes ways to inspect the learned features of the model and how those features act on an image. We discuss techniques for reducing the dimensionality of high-dimensional data and cover autoencoders, both of which can also be leveraged for model interpretation. Understanding model output covers attribution-based methods, such as saliency maps and class activation maps, which produce heatmaps describing the importance of different parts of an image to the model prediction. We describe the mathematics behind these methods, give examples of their use in medical imaging, and compare them against one another. We summarize several published toolkits for model interpretation specific to medical imaging applications, cover limitations of current model interpretation methods, provide recommendations for DL practitioners looking to incorporate model interpretation into their task, and offer general discussion on the importance of model interpretation in medical imaging contexts.

Indexed as

Deep LearningDiagnostic ImagingHumansImage Processing, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID33227719
PMCPMC8236074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.