Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41622299›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Instance-level quantitative saliency in multiple sclerosis lesion segmentation.

Federico Spagnolo, Nataliia Molchanova, Meritxell Bach Cuadra, Mario Ocampo-Pineda, Lester Melie-Garcia, Cristina Granziera, Vincent Andrearczyk, Adrien Depeursinge

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. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Federico SpagnoloTranslational Imaging in Neurology (ThINk) Basel, Department of Medicine and Biomedical Engineering, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Nataliia MolchanovaMedGIFT, Institute of Informatics, School of Management, HES-SO Valais-Wallis University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Sierre, Switzerland.
Meritxell Bach CuadraCIBM Center for Biomedical Imaging, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Mario Ocampo-PinedaTranslational Imaging in Neurology (ThINk) Basel, Department of Medicine and Biomedical Engineering, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Lester Melie-GarciaTranslational Imaging in Neurology (ThINk) Basel, Department of Medicine and Biomedical Engineering, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Cristina GranzieraTranslational Imaging in Neurology (ThINk) Basel, Department of Medicine and Biomedical Engineering, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Vincent Andrearczyk *MedGIFT, Institute of Informatics, School of Management, HES-SO Valais-Wallis University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Sierre, Switzerland.
Adrien Depeursinge *MedGIFT, Institute of Informatics, School of Management, HES-SO Valais-Wallis University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Sierre, Switzerland. adrien.depeursinge@hevs.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, explainable methods for artificial intelligence (XAI) have tried to reveal and describe models' decision mechanisms in the case of classification and even for segmentation. However, XAI methods for semantic segmentation and in particular for single specific instances (e.g. one given lesion among others of the same class in medical imaging) have yet to be developed to understand what drove the detection and contouring of the latter, which is crucial for all multi-lesional diseases. We proposed instance-level explanation maps for semantic segmentation extending both SmoothGrad and Grad-CAM++ methods and yielding quantitative instance saliency for the former. The instance-level methods were applied to the segmentation of white matter lesions (WML), a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) biomarker in multiple sclerosis (MS). 687 patients diagnosed with MS for a total of 4023 FLAIR and MPRAGE MRI scans were collected at the University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland. WM lesion masks were annotated by four expert clinicians on baseline and follow-up imaging. Three deep learning networks-a 3D U-Net, nnU-Net, and Swin UNETR-were trained and tested on these data (test normalized Dice score, respectively of 0.71, 0.78, 0.80; true positive rate of 79%, 78%, and 85%; false discovery rate of 37%, 38%, and 36%; false negative rate of 20%, 22%, and 14%), then saliency maps were computed. Consistent with clinical practice, the proposed instance saliency maps revealed that the model relied more on FLAIR than MPRAGE to segment WMLs, with positive saliency values inside a lesion and negative in its neighborhood. FLAIR hyperintensity combined with healthy WM around the lesion border was required for their detection. Beyond the aforementioned sanity checks, we observed that peak values of the generated saliency maps presented distributions that differ significantly between TP, FN, FP and TN predictions, suggesting that the quantitative nature of the proposed saliency could be used to identify errors. In conclusion, we introduced two XAI methods to generate quantitative instance-level explanations in semantic segmentation. The proposed XAI maps can be applied to any architecture and could serve as a basis to (i) improve model performance (e.g. reducing FPs), (ii) optimize their internal architecture (e.g. patch size), and (iii) justify the model's decisions to the end users, which are contextualized to a specific lesion instance of interest.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMultiple SclerosisWhite MatterArtificial IntelligenceDeep LearningHumansDeep learningMRIMultiple sclerosisSegmentationXAI

Identifiers

PMID41622299
PMCPMC12916819

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.