ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Comparative evaluation of explainable vision models for bone tumour detection on radiographs.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Accurate detection of bone tumours on radiographs can be challenging because lesion appearance varies and interpretation requires specialist expertise. This study evaluates deep learning (DL) models for bone tumour localisation, segmentation, classification, and explainability using the publicly available Bone Tumour X-Ray Radiograph Dataset (BTXRD), comprising 3,746 musculoskeletal radiographs. Methods: A YOLOv8s-seg model was evaluated alongside MobileNetV3-Large, EfficientNet-B3, and ConvNeXt-Tiny classifiers trained under a common-resolution protocol. Grad-CAM, Grad-CAM++, and Layer-CAM activation maps were compared with expert tumour masks using mean Intersection over Union and a thresholded lesion-overlap measure. For the retrospective agreement analysis, EfficientNet-B3 was paired with YOLOv8s-seg. An exploratory external series of 11 tumour-positive radiographs was also examined. Results: ConvNeXt-Tiny achieved the highest binary classification accuracy (0.879), while YOLOv8s-seg achieved an overall box mAP50 of 0.676 and mask mAP50 of 0.668. The components produced concordant binary tumour-presence predictions for 605 of 750 test radiographs, corresponding to 80.7% coverage (95% confidence interval [CI]: 77.7%-83.3%). Binary accuracy within the agreed subset was 93.6% (566/605; 95% CI: 91.3%-95.2%), while the remaining 145 cases were discordant and received no consensus output. Discussion: The XAI analyses quantify spatial correspondence rather than explanation faithfulness or clinical reliability. Because the exploratory external series contained seven benign and four malignant tumour-positive radiographs and no normal radiographs, it cannot assess specificity or false-positive behaviour and is not presented as representative external validation.
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.