Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40800540›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024

Applications of interpretable deep learning in neuroimaging: A comprehensive review.

Lindsay Munroe, Mariana da Silva, Faezeh Heidari, Irina Grigorescu, Simon Dahan, Emma C Robinson, Maria Deprez, Po-Wah So

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Advances in artificial intelligence for neuroimaging.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2026
    Review
  3. Deep learning in fetal, infant, and toddler neuroimaging research.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

8 authors.

Lindsay MunroeDepartment of Neuroimaging, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Mariana da SilvaSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Faezeh HeidariInstitute of Clinical Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Irina GrigorescuSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Simon DahanSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Emma C RobinsonSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Maria DeprezSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Po-Wah SoDepartment of Neuroimaging, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative - SupplementU01AG024904 · NIA · NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE RES &EDUC · PI WEINER, MICHAEL W · 2004 to 2015
$121.0M
NIA NIH HHS U01 AG024904
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical adoption of deep learning models has been hindered, in part, because the "black-box" nature of neural networks leads to concerns regarding their trustworthiness and reliability. These concerns are particularly relevant in the field of neuroimaging due to the complex brain phenotypes and inter-subject heterogeneity often encountered. The challenge can be addressed by interpretable deep learning (iDL) methods that enable the visualisation and interpretation of the inner workings of deep learning models. This study systematically reviewed the literature on neuroimaging applications of iDL methods and critically analysed how iDL explanation properties were evaluated. Seventy-five studies were included, and ten categories of iDL methods were identified. We also reviewed five properties of iDL explanations that were analysed in the included studies: biological validity, robustness, continuity, selectivity, and downstream task performance. We found that the most popular iDL approaches used in the literature may be sub-optimal for neuroimaging data, and we discussed possible future directions for the field.

Indexed as

explainable AIinterpretable deep learningintrinsic interpretabilityneuroimaging

Identifiers

PMID40800540
PMCPMC12272211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.