Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41229616›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medical technology2025

More than just a heatmap: elevating XAI with rigorous evaluation metrics.

Dost Muhammad, Malika Bendechache

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medical technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Dost MuhammadCRT-AI and ADAPT Research Centers, School of Computer Science, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Malika BendechacheADAPT Research Centers, School of Computer Science, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and ultrasound are central to tumour diagnosis and treatment planning. Although Deep learning (DL) models achieve strong prediction performance, high computational demand and limited explainability can hinder clinical adoption. Common post hoc Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods namely Grad-CAM, LIME, and SHAP often yield fragmented or anatomically misaligned saliency maps. Methods: We propose SpikeNet, a hybrid framework that combines Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) for spatial feature encoding with Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs)for efficient, event driven processing. SpikeNet includes a native saliency module that produces explanations during inference. We also introduce XAlign, a metric that quantifies alignment between explanations and expert tumour annotations by integrating regional concentration, boundary adherence, and dispersion penalties. Evaluation follows patient level cross validation on TCGA-LGG (MRI, 22 folds) and BUSI (ultrasound, 5 folds), with slice level predictions aggregated to patient level decisions and BUSI treated as a three class task. We report per image latency and throughput alongside accuracy, precision, recall, F1, AUROC, and AUPRC. Results: SpikeNet achieved high prediction performance with tight variability across folds. On TCGA-LGG it reached Conclusion: SpikeNet delivers accurate, low latency, and explainable analysis for MRI and ultrasound by unifying CNN based spatial encoding, sparse spiking computation, and native explanations. The XAlign metric provides a clinically oriented assessment of explanation fidelity and supports consistent comparison across methods. These results indicate the potential of SpikeNet and XAlign for trustworthy and efficient clinical decision support.

Indexed as

evaluation metrics for XAIexplainable DLXAI for medical imagingXAI in healthcareXAI validation

Identifiers

PMID41229616
PMCPMC12602234

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.