ArticleDigital health
Unveiling the black box: Explainable transfer learning for ocular disorder diagnosis.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate transfer learning (TL) models for multiclass ocular disease diagnosis and assess their reliability using explainable artificial intelligence (AI). Methods: Eight pretrained convolutional neural network (CNN) models were evaluated on a public dataset covering cataract, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, and normal classes under a unified protocol. Performance was measured using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. Grad-CAM, LIME, and SHAP were used for interpretability, and the Friedman test assessed performance consistency. Results: Several models achieved near-perfect performance for diabetic retinopathy. DenseNet121 and XceptionNet performed best for cataract detection, while glaucoma showed consistently weaker results, indicating the need for segmentation-based approaches. Despite similar accuracy, explainability revealed substantial differences in model attention. EfficientNetB3 produced the most clinically meaningful visual explanations. Conclusions: Accuracy alone is insufficient for trustworthy medical AI. Explainable AI is essential for model selection. EfficientNetB3 offers the best balance between performance and interpretability, and glaucoma diagnosis requires more advanced, segmentation-aware pipelines.
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.