ArticleIEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions2021
Explainability Metrics of Deep Convolutional Networks for Photoplethysmography Quality Assessment.
Article in IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sparse learned kernels for interpretable and efficient medical time series processing.Nature machine intelligence · 2024Article
- Hierarchical approach for pulmonary-nodule identification from CT images using YOLO model and a 3D neural network classifier.Radiological physics and technology · 2024Article
- A review of evaluation approaches for explainable AI with applications in cardiology.Artificial intelligence review · 2024Article
- BCG Signal Quality Assessment Based on Time-Series Imaging Methods.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Explainable AI for clinical and remote health applications: a survey on tabular and time series data.Artificial intelligence review · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Photoplethysmography (PPG) is a noninvasive way to monitor various aspects of the circulatory system, and is becoming more and more widespread in biomedical processing. Recently, deep learning methods for analyzing PPG have also become prevalent, achieving state of the art results on heart rate estimation, atrial fibrillation detection, and motion artifact identification. Consequently, a need for interpretable deep learning has arisen within the field of biomedical signal processing. In this paper, we pioneer novel explanatory metrics which leverage domain-expert knowledge to validate a deep learning model. We visualize model attention over a whole testset using saliency methods and compare it to human expert annotations. Congruence, our first metric, measures the proportion of model attention within expert-annotated regions. Our second metric, Annotation Classification, measures how much of the expert annotations our deep learning model pays attention to. Finally, we apply our metrics to compare between a signal based model and an image based model for PPG signal quality classification. Both models are deep convolutional networks based on the ResNet architectures. We show that our signal-based one dimensional model acts in a more explainable manner than our image based model; on average 50.78% of the one dimensional model's attention are within expert annotations, whereas 36.03% of the two dimensional model's attention are within expert annotations. Similarly, when thresholding the one dimensional model attention, one can more accurately predict if each pixel of the PPG is annotated as artifactual by an expert. Through this testcase, we demonstrate how our metrics can provide a quantitative and dataset-wide analysis of how explainable the model is.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.