ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Are Artificial Intelligence Models Listening Like Cardiologists? Bridging the Gap Between Artificial Intelligence and Clinical Reasoning in Heart-Sound Classification Using Explainable Artificial Intelligence.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent years, deep learning has shown promise in automating heart-sound classification. Although this approach is fast, non-invasive, and cost-effective, its diagnostic accuracy still mainly depends on the clinician's expertise, making it particularly challenging to detect rare or complex conditions. This study is motivated by two key concerns in the field of heart-sound classification. First, we observed that automatic heart-sound segmentation algorithms-commonly used for data augmentation-produce varying outcomes, raising concerns about the accuracy of both the segmentation process and the resulting classification performance. Second, we noticed inconsistent accuracy scores across different pretrained models, prompting the need for interpretable explanations to validate these results. We argue that without interpretability to support reported metrics, accuracy scores can be misleading because of ambiguity in how training data interact with pretrained models. Specifically, it remains unclear whether these models classify spectrogram images-generated from heart-sound signals-in a way that aligns with clinical reasoning, where experts focus on specific components of the heart cycle, such as S1, systole, S2, and diastole. To address this, we applied explainable AI (XAI) techniques with two primary objectives: (1) to assess whether the model truly focuses on clinically relevant features, thereby allowing classification results to be verified and trusted, and (2) to investigate whether incorporating attention mechanisms can improve both the performance and the model's focus on meaningful segments of the signal. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study conducted on a manually segmented dataset, which objectively evaluates the model's behavior using XAI and explores performance enhancement by combining attention mechanisms with pretrained models. We employ the Grad-CAM method to visualize the model's attention and gain insights into the decision-making process. The experimental results show that integrating multi-head attention significantly improves both the classification accuracy and interpretability. Notably, ResNet50 with multi-head attention achieved an accuracy of 97.3%, outperforming those of both the baseline and SE-enhanced models. Moreover, the mean intersection over union (mIoU) for interpretability increased from 75.7% to 82.0%, indicating the model's improved focus on diagnostically relevant regions.
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.