Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41491079›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Applicability study of AI attribution methods for ophthalmic image classification.

Ali Yavari, Tilman Schmoll, Rainer A Leitgeb, Kim Lien Huber, Heiko Stino, Andreas Pollreisz, Wolfgang Drexler, Thomas Schlegl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Ali YavariCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20 (4L), 1090, Vienna, Austria. ali.yavari@meduniwien.ac.at.
Tilman SchmollCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20 (4L), 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Rainer A LeitgebCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20 (4L), 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Kim Lien HuberDepartment of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Heiko StinoDepartment of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Andreas PollreiszDepartment of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Wolfgang DrexlerCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20 (4L), 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Thomas SchleglCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20 (4L), 1090, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) enables early detection of vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (DR) and retinal fluid accumulation, both major complications of diabetes. Despite high classification performance, deep learning models face limited clinical adoption due to poor interpretability. While attribution methods are effective for explaining predictions in the natural image domain, their applicability to medical imaging remains underexplored. To bridge this gap, our work explores how well these strong results transfer to the medical imaging domain. This study evaluates three cutting-edge attribution methods- DeepLIFT, AGI, and AttEXplore -for explaining predictions of a VGG16-based deep learning model in DR classification using widefield OCTA en face images and fluid detection in OCT B-scans. We assess attribution methods' ability to highlight clinically relevant regions using quantitative (insertion and deletion scores) and qualitative (heatmap visual analysis) measures. Although the VGG16 model achieves high classification accuracy (94% for DR and 98% for fluid), attribution methods yield markedly different qualitative results due to variations in underlying assumptions and hyperparameter sensitivity. Additionally, high insertion or low deletion scores do not necessarily correlate with clinically meaningful visual attributions. In particular, insertion- and deletion-based behaviour can be more informative in pathological cases, where localized lesions can drive predictions, but tends to be less informative in normal cases, where confirming the absence of pathology requires global contextual evidence. Comparing the three approaches, we find that AGI and AttEXplore achieve similarly strong quantitative performance, whereas AttEXplore more consistently highlights clinically meaningful structures in pathological cases than AGI and DeepLIFT, making it the preferred option in our DR and fluid detection settings. However, our results also show that in any potential clinical usage, all three methods must be interpreted alongside clinical expertise, and even the result of the best-performing attribution approach cannot serve as an automatic proxy for clinical relevance. This study provides critical insights into challenges of applying attribution methods to medical imaging, using ophthalmic data, laying a foundation for improving transparency and trust in AI-assisted diagnostics.

Indexed as

Diabetic RetinopathyImage Processing, Computer-AssistedTomography, Optical CoherenceDeep LearningHumansRetina

Identifiers

PMID41491079
PMCPMC12835177

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.