ArticleHealth information science and systems2026
Consistent explainable image quality assessment for medical imaging.
Article in Health information science and systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Medical image quality assessment is crucial, as poor-quality images can lead to misdiagnosis. Manual quality labeling is tedious for large studies and may produce misleading results. While automated analysis of image quality has been studied, little focus has been given to explaining and quantifying methodologies. This study proposes an explainable image quality assessment system, validated in two contexts: foreign object detection in Chest X-Rays (Object-CXR) and Left Ventricular Outflow Tract (LVOT) detection in Cardiac MRI. Methods: Our explainable pipeline employs NormGrad, an algorithm that efficiently localizes image quality issues by comparing the classifier's saliency maps against several baseline saliency detectors. Additionally, a novel metric, the Difference of Means (DoM), is introduced to assess the consistency of saliency detectors across different network architectures. Results: We compare NormGrad with a range of saliency detection methods and demonstrate its superior performance in measuring the faithfulness of the saliency detectors. Specifically, NormGrad achieved a repeated Pointing Game score of 0.863 for Object-CXR and 0.778 for LVOT datasets, significantly outperforming other saliency detectors. Furthermore, our explainable pipeline shows strong consistency, with DoM scores of 0.001 for Object-CXR and 0.005 for LVOT datasets, indicating high reliability across different reproduced models. The code and experiments are publicly available at https://github.com/canerozer/explainable-iqa. Conclusion: The proposed system, powered by NormGrad, significantly improves the reliability of automated medical image quality evaluations. The introduction of the Difference of Means metric offers a unique way to assess saliency detector consistency, supporting NormGrad's potential for widespread clinical adoption.
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.