Abstract
Saliency methods, which “explain” deep neural networks by producing heat maps that highlight the areas of the medical image that influence model prediction, are often presented to clinicians as an aid in diagnostic decision-making. Although many saliency methods have been proposed for medical imaging interpretation, rigorous investigation of the accuracy and reliability of these strategies is necessary before they are integrated into the clinical setting. In this work, we quantitatively evaluate seven saliency methods—including Grad-CAM, Grad-CAM++, and Integrated Gradients—across multiple neural network architectures using two evaluation metrics. We establish the first human benchmark for chest X-ray segmentation in a multilabel classification set up, and examine under what clinical conditions saliency maps might be more prone to failure in localizing important pathologies compared to a human expert benchmark. We find that (i) while Grad-CAM generally localized pathologies better than the other evaluated saliency methods, all seven performed significantly worse compared with the human benchmark; (ii) the gap in localization performance between Grad-CAM and the human benchmark was largest for pathologies that had multiple instances, were smaller in size, and had shapes that were more complex; (iii) model confidence was positively correlated with Grad-CAM localization performance. While it is difficult to know whether poor localization performance is attributable to the model or to the saliency method, our work demonstrates that several important limitations of saliency methods must be addressed before we can rely on them for deep learning explainability in medical imaging.
Competing Interest Statement
M.L. is an advisor for and/or has research funded by GE, Philips, Carestream, Nines Radiology, Segmed, Centaur Labs, Microsoft, BunkerHill, and Amazon Web Services (none of the funded research was relevant to this project). A.P. is a medical associate at Cerebriu. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.
Funding Statement
N/A
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The project did not involve human subjects research
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
New saliency methods have been added and the language of the manuscript has been updated.
Data Availability
CheXpert data is available at https://stanfordmlgroup.github.io/competitions/chexpert/. The validation set and corresponding benchmark radiologist annotations will be available online for the purpose of extending the study.
