Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42342760›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Cross-domain transfer learning strategy enhances interpretability of deep learning model explanations.

Matteo Zannini, Alexander Hammer, Hagen Malberg, Martin Schmidt

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Matteo ZanniniInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany. matteo.zannini@tu-dresden.de.ORCID 0009-0004-9046-6038
Alexander HammerInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Hagen MalbergInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Martin SchmidtInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical decision-making increasingly relies on deep neural networks (DNNs), yet their deployment in practice requires transparent and interpretable predictions. Explainable artificial intelligence (xAI) methods can identify input regions relevant to a model's decision, but their clinical interpretability remains limited. In this study, we investigated whether inductive transfer learning (TL) can reinforce domain-specific feature separation in xECGArch, a two-branch convolutional neural network for atrial fibrillation (AF) detection from electrocardiograms (ECGs). Each branch was pre-trained on a task aligned with its designated feature domain, P wave detection for morphology and RR interval variability prediction for rhythm, then fine-tuned on binary AF classification using an iterative layer freezing schedule. Deep Taylor decomposition (DTD) was applied to analyze explanations across all configurations. Fine-tuning accuracy ranged from 85.70% to 95.23%, remaining comparable to the original xECGArch architecture and previous TL-based approaches. However, DTD analysis demonstrated that morphology pre-training directed relevance toward P waves, whereas rhythm pre-training concentrated explanations on R peaks, with domain specificity increasing as more layers were frozen. These findings suggest that inductive TL can encourage domain-specific feature attribution in DNNs, improving the alignment of post-hoc explanations with clinically meaningful ECG regions.

Indexed as

Atrial FibrillationDeep LearningConvolutional Neural NetworksElectrocardiographyHumansTransfer Machine Learning

Identifiers

PMID42342760
PMCPMC13294490

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.