mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Outlier Detection in Plantar Pressure: Human-Centered Comparison of Statistical Parametric Mapping and Explainable Machine Learning

arXiv 2509.21943 ↗First posted 26 Sep 2025cs.AI cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Plantar pressure mapping is essential in clinical diagnostics and sports science, yet large heterogeneous datasets often contain outliers from technical errors or procedural inconsistencies. Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) provides interpretable analyses but is sensitive to alignment and its capacity for robust outlier detection remains unclear. This study compares an SPM approach with an explainable machine learning (ML) approach to establish transparent quality-control pipelines for plantar pressure datasets. Data from multiple centers were annotated by expert consensus and enriched with synthetic anomalies resulting in 798 valid samples and 2000 outliers. We evaluated (i) a non-parametric, registration-dependent SPM approach and (ii) a convolutional neural network (CNN), explained using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). Performance was assessed via nested cross-validation; explanation quality via a semantic differential survey with domain experts. The ML model reached high accuracy and outperformed SPM, which misclassified clinically meaningful variations and missed true outliers. Experts perceived both SPM and SHAP explanations as clear, useful, and trustworthy, though SPM was assessed less complex. These findings highlight the complementary potential of SPM and explainable ML as approaches for automated outlier detection in plantar pressure data, and underscore the importance of explainability in translating complex model outputs into interpretable insights that can effectively inform decision-making.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Sep 2025.

Builds on

12 of 54 references.

References · 12

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  2. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,416
  3. 2017A Survey on Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysiscited by 1,186
  4. 2019Hidden Stratification Causes Clinically Meaningful Failures in Machine Learning for Medical Imagingcited by 216
  5. 2019One Explanation Does Not Fit All: A Toolkit and Taxonomy of AI Explainability Techniquescited by 164
  6. 2021Anomaly Detection in Medical Imaging -- A Mini Reviewcited by 44
  7. 2015A Survey of Predictive Modelling under Imbalanced Distributionscited by 23
  8. 2019On the Explanation of Machine Learning Predictions in Clinical Gait Analysiscited by 15
  9. 2022Effect of Balancing Data Using Synthetic Data on the Performance of Machine Learning Classifiers for Intrusion Detection in Computer Networkscited by 11
  10. 2023On Leakage in Machine Learning Pipelinescited by 7
  11. 2025Data Augmentation of Time-Series Data in Human Movement Biomechanics: A Scoping Reviewcited by 2
  12. 2025Machine Learning in Biomechanics: Key Applications and Limitations in Walking, Running, and Sports Movementscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.