ArticleJournal of imaging2026
Clinician-Centered Evaluation Framework for Explainable AI Heatmaps in OCT-Based Retinal Disease Classification.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study presents a two-phase framework for selecting clinically plausible explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) heatmaps for retinal optical coherence tomography (OCT) classification. A six-class Swin Transformer model was trained and validated using a combined dataset consisting of a subset of the public OCT-C8 dataset and private data from a Greek tertiary hospital and externally evaluated on an independent dataset from a private ophthalmological institute. Diagnostic performance was high, achieving 97% accuracy in cross-validation and 91.82% on external evaluation. In Phase 1, one ophthalmologist and one artificial intelligence (AI) specialist independently assessed 100 heatmaps per method based on visual quality and anatomical plausibility, reducing the candidate methods to three. In Phase 2, 21 specialists evaluated the selected methods across multiple cases using a five-point Likert scale reflecting agreement between highlighted regions and the model diagnosis. The proposed Token contRAST map (TRAST) achieved the highest ratings, followed by Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM++), while Cosine-Grad Fusion Map (CGFM) showed the lowest performance. These findings reflect clinical plausibility rather than direct model interpretability and indicate that effective XAI in OCT imaging requires not only technical performance but also structured expert evaluation. The proposed framework provides a practical approach for selecting explanation methods suitable for clinical use in ophthalmology.
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.