ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative evaluation of CAM methods for enhancing explainability in veterinary radiography.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving wildlife track classification through human-in-the-loop method and explainable AI.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Expanding Role of Artificial Intelligence in Companion Animal Care: A Systematic Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Closed-loop artificial intelligence agents for animal epidemic prediction and decision support in livestock farming: a review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) encompasses a broad spectrum of methods that aim to enhance the transparency of deep learning models, with Class Activation Mapping (CAM) methods widely used for visual interpretability. However, systematic evaluations of these methods in veterinary radiography remain scarce. This study presents a comparative analysis of eleven CAM methods, including GradCAM, XGradCAM, ScoreCAM, and EigenCAM, on a dataset of 7362 canine and feline X-ray images. A ResNet18 model was chosen based on the specificity of the dataset and preliminary results where it outperformed other models. Quantitative and qualitative evaluations were performed to determine how well each CAM method produced interpretable heatmaps relevant to clinical decision-making. Among the techniques evaluated, EigenGradCAM achieved the highest mean score and standard deviation (SD) of 2.571 (SD = 1.256), closely followed by EigenCAM at 2.519 (SD = 1.228) and GradCAM++ at 2.512 (SD = 1.277), with methods such as FullGrad and XGradCAM achieving worst scores of 2.000 (SD = 1.300) and 1.858 (SD = 1.198) respectively. Despite variations in saliency visualization, no single method universally improved veterinarians' diagnostic confidence. While certain CAM methods provide better visual cues for some pathologies, they generally offered limited explainability and didn't substantially improve veterinarians' diagnostic confidence.
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.