mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

One Map Does Not Fit All: Evaluating Saliency Map Explanation on Multi-Modal Medical Images

arXiv 2107.05047 ↗First posted 11 Jul 2021cs.CV cs.LGcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Being able to explain the prediction to clinical end-users is a necessity to leverage the power of AI models for clinical decision support. For medical images, saliency maps are the most common form of explanation. The maps highlight important features for AI model's prediction. Although many saliency map methods have been proposed, it is unknown how well they perform on explaining decisions on multi-modal medical images, where each modality/channel carries distinct clinical meanings of the same underlying biomedical phenomenon. Understanding such modality-dependent features is essential for clinical users' interpretation of AI decisions. To tackle this clinically important but technically ignored problem, we propose the MSFI (Modality-Specific Feature Importance) metric to examine whether saliency maps can highlight modality-specific important features. MSFI encodes the clinical requirements on modality prioritization and modality-specific feature localization. Our evaluations on 16 commonly used saliency map methods, including a clinician user study, show that although most saliency map methods captured modality importance information in general, most of them failed to highlight modality-specific important features consistently and precisely. The evaluation results guide the choices of saliency map methods and provide insights to propose new ones targeting clinical applications.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Jul 2021.

Builds on

18 of 60 references.

References · 18

  1. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  2. 2015Learning Deep Features for Discriminative Localizationcited by 2,430
  3. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  4. 2017Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)cited by 1,309
  5. 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
  6. 2017SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noisecited by 1,097
  7. 2017Network Dissection: Quantifying Interpretability of Deep Visual Representationscited by 703
  8. 2018A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networkscited by 467
  9. 2017Deep Learning for Medical Image Analysiscited by 399
  10. 2018Confounding variables can degrade generalization performance of radiological deep learning modelscited by 374
  11. 2019On the (In)fidelity and Sensitivity for Explanationscited by 309
  12. 2020Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Makingcited by 281
6 more
  1. 2019What Clinicians Want: Contextualizing Explainable Machine Learning for Clinical End Usecited by 134
  2. 2020Explainable deep learning models in medical image analysiscited by 111
  3. 2019InfoMask: Masked Variational Latent Representation to Localize Chest Diseasecited by 15
  4. 2018Automatic brain tumor grading from MRI data using convolutional neural networks and quality assessmentcited by 11
  5. 2019Artificial Intelligence in Glioma Imaging: Challenges and Advancescited by 10
  6. 2018Efficient Interpretation of Deep Learning Models Using Graph Structure and Cooperative Game Theory: Application to ASD Biomarker Discoverycited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 2; 2023: 2; 2024: 1; 2025: 2; 2026: 2.

11 papers.