Generating post-hoc explanation from deep neural networks for multi-modal medical image analysis tasks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Explaining model decisions from medical image inputs is necessary for deploying deep neural network (DNN) based models as clinical decision assistants. The acquisition of multi-modal medical images is pervasive in practice for supporting the clinical decision-making process. Multi-modal images capture different aspects of the same underlying regions of interest. Explaining DNN decisions on multi-modal medical images is thus a clinically important problem. Our methods adopt commonly-used post-hoc artificial intelligence feature attribution methods to explain DNN decisions on multi-modal medical images, including two categories of gradient- and perturbation-based methods. • Gradient-based explanation methods - such as Guided BackProp, DeepLift - utilize the gradient signal to estimate the feature importance for model prediction. • Perturbation-based methods - such as occlusion, LIME, kernel SHAP - utilize the input-output sampling pairs to estimate the feature importance. • We describe the implementation details on how to make the methods work for multi-modal image input, and make the implementation code available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it