ArticleJournal of vision2024
Influence of training and expertise on deep neural network attention and human attention during a medical image classification task.
Article in Journal of vision, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraoperative surgical anatomy through the eyes of artificial intelligence: the silent tutor.BJU international · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in the recognition of stages in live laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In many different domains, experts can make complex decisions after glancing very briefly at an image. However, the perceptual mechanisms underlying expert performance are still largely unknown. Recently, several machine learning algorithms have been shown to outperform human experts in specific tasks. But these algorithms often behave as black boxes and their information processing pipeline remains unknown. This lack of transparency and interpretability is highly problematic in applications involving human lives, such as health care. One way to "open the black box" is to compute an artificial attention map from the model, which highlights the pixels of the input image that contributed the most to the model decision. In this work, we directly compare human visual attention to machine visual attention when performing the same visual task. We have designed a medical diagnosis task involving the detection of lesions in small bowel endoscopic images. We collected eye movements from novices and gastroenterologist experts while they classified medical images according to their relevance for Crohn's disease diagnosis. We trained three state-of-the-art deep learning models on our carefully labeled dataset. Both humans and machine performed the same task. We extracted artificial attention with six different post hoc methods. We show that the model attention maps are significantly closer to human expert attention maps than to novices', especially for pathological images. As the model gets trained and its performance gets closer to the human experts, the similarity between model and human attention increases. Through the understanding of the similarities between the visual decision-making process of human experts and deep neural networks, we hope to inform both the training of new doctors and the architecture of new algorithms.
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.