mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Explainable fetal ultrasound quality assessment with progressive concept bottleneck models

arXiv 2211.10630 ↗First posted 19 Nov 2022cs.CV cs.AIcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The quality of fetal ultrasound screening scans directly influences the precision of biometric measurements. However, acquiring high-quality scans is labor-intensive and highly relies on the operator's skills. Considering the low contrastiveness and imaging artifacts that widely exist in ultrasound, even a dedicated deep-learning model can be vulnerable to learning from confounding information in the image. In this paper, we propose a holistic and explainable method for fetal ultrasound quality assessment, where we design a hierarchical concept bottleneck model by introducing human-readable ``concepts" into the task and imitating the sequential expert decision-making process. This hierarchical information flow forces the model to learn concepts from semantically meaningful areas: The model first passes through a layer of visual, segmentation-based concepts, and next a second layer of property concepts directly associated with the decision-making task. We consider the quality assessment to be in a more challenging but more realistic setting, with fine-grained image recognition. Experiments show that our model outperforms equivalent concept-free models on an in-house dataset, and shows better generalizability on two public benchmarks, one from Spain and one from Africa, without any fine-tuning.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 65 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Nov 2022.

Builds on

27 of 65 references.

References · 27

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2017Mask R-CNNcited by 7,277
  3. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,733
  4. 2015Learning Deep Features for Discriminative Localizationcited by 2,436
  5. 2017Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)cited by 1,319
  6. 2020Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 1,032
  7. 2020Designing Network Design Spacescited by 960
  8. 2019Score-CAM: Score-Weighted Visual Explanations for Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 582
  9. 2019The many Shapley values for model explanationcited by 344
  10. 2022Post-hoc Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 293
  11. 2018Attention Gated Networks: Learning to Leverage Salient Regions in Medical Imagescited by 272
  12. 2020Opportunities and Challenges in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A Surveycited by 254
15 more
  1. 2020Concept Whitening for Interpretable Image Recognitioncited by 225
  2. 2021Promises and Pitfalls of Black-Box Concept Learning Modelscited by 131
  3. 2021Do Concept Bottleneck Models Learn as Intended?cited by 116
  4. 2018Attention Branch Network: Learning of Attention Mechanism for Visual Explanationcited by 109
  5. 2020Interpretable and Accurate Fine-grained Recognition via Region Groupingcited by 75
  6. 2016SonoNet: Real-Time Detection and Localisation of Fetal Standard Scan Planes in Freehand Ultrasoundcited by 71
  7. 2022Concept Embedding Models: Beyond the Accuracy-Explainability Trade-Offcited by 61
  8. 2021A Framework for Learning Ante-hoc Explainable Models via Conceptscited by 45
  9. 2019Semantic-Aware Scene Recognitioncited by 43
  10. 2021Human Attention in Fine-grained Classificationcited by 21
  11. 2022HINT: Hierarchical Neuron Concept Explainercited by 17
  12. 2022Generalisability of fetal ultrasound deep learning models to low-resource imaging settings in five African countriescited by 15
  13. 2020End-to-end training of a two-stage neural network for defect detectioncited by 12
  14. 2022DTU-Net: Learning Topological Similarity for Curvilinear Structure Segmentationcited by 12
  15. 2019Ultrasound Image Representation Learning by Modeling Sonographer Visual Attentioncited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 3.

3 papers.