ArticleJournal of imaging2026
A Cross-Domain Benchmark of Intrinsic and Post Hoc Explainability for 3D Deep Learning Models.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep learning models for three-dimensional (3D) data are increasingly used in domains such as medical imaging, object recognition, and robotics. At the same time, the use of AI in these domains is increasing, while, due to their black-box nature, the need for explainability has grown significantly. However, the lack of standardized and quantitative benchmarks for explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in 3D data limits the reliable comparison of explanation quality. In this paper, we present a unified benchmarking framework to evaluate both intrinsic and post hoc XAI methods across three representative 3D datasets: volumetric CT scans (MosMed), voxelized CAD models (ModelNet40), and real-world point clouds (ScanObjectNN). The evaluated methods include Grad-CAM, Integrated Gradients, Saliency, Occlusion, and the intrinsic ResAttNet-3D model. We quantitatively assess explanations using the Correctness (AOPC), Completeness (AUPC), and Compactness metrics, consistently applied across all datasets. Our results show that explanation quality significantly varies across methods and domains, demonstrating that Grad-CAM and intrinsic attention performed best on medical CT scans, while gradient-based methods excelled on voxelized and point-based data. Statistical tests (Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U) confirmed significant performance differences between methods. No single approach achieved superior results across all domains, highlighting the importance of multi-metric evaluation. This work provides a reproducible framework for standardized assessment of 3D explainability and comparative insights to guide future XAI method selection.
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.