Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37035429›Full record

ArticleRadiology. Artificial intelligence2023

Attention-based Saliency Maps Improve Interpretability of Pneumothorax Classification.

Alessandro Wollek, Robert Graf, Saša Čečatka, Nicola Fink, Theresa Willem, Bastian O Sabel, Tobias Lasser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology. Artificial intelligence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Alessandro Wollek *Munich Institute of Biomedical Engineering and Department of Informatics, Technical University of Munich, Boltzmannstr 11, Garching b., Munich 85748, Germany (A.W., R.G., T.L.); Department of Radiology, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany (S.Č., N.F., B.O.S.); and Munich School of Technology in Society, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (T.W.).ORCID 0000-0001-9535-0502
Robert Graf *Munich Institute of Biomedical Engineering and Department of Informatics, Technical University of Munich, Boltzmannstr 11, Garching b., Munich 85748, Germany (A.W., R.G., T.L.); Department of Radiology, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany (S.Č., N.F., B.O.S.); and Munich School of Technology in Society, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (T.W.).ORCID 0000-0001-6656-3680
Saša ČečatkaMunich Institute of Biomedical Engineering and Department of Informatics, Technical University of Munich, Boltzmannstr 11, Garching b., Munich 85748, Germany (A.W., R.G., T.L.); Department of Radiology, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany (S.Č., N.F., B.O.S.); and Munich School of Technology in Society, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (T.W.).ORCID 0000-0003-1217-2531
Nicola FinkMunich Institute of Biomedical Engineering and Department of Informatics, Technical University of Munich, Boltzmannstr 11, Garching b., Munich 85748, Germany (A.W., R.G., T.L.); Department of Radiology, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany (S.Č., N.F., B.O.S.); and Munich School of Technology in Society, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (T.W.).
Theresa WillemMunich Institute of Biomedical Engineering and Department of Informatics, Technical University of Munich, Boltzmannstr 11, Garching b., Munich 85748, Germany (A.W., R.G., T.L.); Department of Radiology, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany (S.Č., N.F., B.O.S.); and Munich School of Technology in Society, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (T.W.).
Bastian O SabelMunich Institute of Biomedical Engineering and Department of Informatics, Technical University of Munich, Boltzmannstr 11, Garching b., Munich 85748, Germany (A.W., R.G., T.L.); Department of Radiology, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany (S.Č., N.F., B.O.S.); and Munich School of Technology in Society, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (T.W.).
Tobias LasserMunich Institute of Biomedical Engineering and Department of Informatics, Technical University of Munich, Boltzmannstr 11, Garching b., Munich 85748, Germany (A.W., R.G., T.L.); Department of Radiology, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany (S.Č., N.F., B.O.S.); and Munich School of Technology in Society, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (T.W.).ORCID 0000-0001-5669-920X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the chest radiograph classification performance of vision transformers (ViTs) and interpretability of attention-based saliency maps, using the example of pneumothorax classification. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, ViTs were fine-tuned for lung disease classification using four public datasets: 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 Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine-American College of Radiology (SIIM-ACR) Pneumothorax Segmentation datasets using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis and compared with convolutional neural networks (CNNs). The explainability methods were evaluated with positive and negative perturbation, sensitivity-n, effective heat ratio, intra-architecture repeatability, and interarchitecture reproducibility. In the user study, three radiologists classified 160 chest radiographs with and without saliency maps for pneumothorax and rated their usefulness. Results: ViTs had comparable chest radiograph classification AUCs compared with state-of-the-art CNNs: 0.95 (95% CI: 0.94, 0.95) versus 0.83 (95%, CI 0.83, 0.84) on Chest X-Ray 14, 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.91) versus 0.83 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.90) on VinBigData, and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.86) versus 0.87 (95% CI: 0.87, 0.88) on SIIM-ACR. Both saliency map methods unveiled a strong bias toward pneumothorax tubes in the models. Radiologists found 47% of the attention-based and 39% of the GradCAM saliency maps useful. The attention-based methods outperformed GradCAM on all metrics. Conclusion: ViTs performed similarly to CNNs in chest radiograph classification, and their attention-based saliency maps were more useful to radiologists and outperformed GradCAM.

Indexed as

Conventional RadiographyConvolutional Neural Network (CNN)DiagnosisSupervised LearningThorax

Identifiers

PMID37035429
PMCPMC10077084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.