A Diagnostic Gap Framework for Evaluating Reconstruction Fidelity in Weakly Supervised Mammography
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Weakly supervised pipelines for medical imaging have become increasingly popular over the years. These systems often include multiple stages and components, such as reconstruction, generation, and localization, yet standard evaluation metrics provide limited insight into whether clinically relevant information is preserved across each stage. We present the diagnostic gap framework, a practical evaluation tool that measures decision preservation and explanation preservation as a function of measured reconstruction fidelity. To isolate the effect of reconstruction from localization, we evaluate on curated lesion ROI crops using a fidelity ladder of three class-conditional reconstructors---VQ-VAE-GAN, VAE-GAN, and diffusion (SDEdit)---spanning a twenty-fold range in perceptual distance (LPIPS 0.029--0.584). At autoencoder fidelity, both decision and explanation are preserved: AUC changes remain within ±0.005 and attribution similarity (HiResCAM, Grad-CAM++) stays high. At diffusion fidelity, both collapse: pooled AUC drops by 0.253 and mass-pathology AUC falls below chance. The diagnostic gap is thus a measurable function of reconstruction fidelity rather than an intrinsic cost of reconstruction, and the framework provides an architecture-agnostic instrument for identifying when and where multi-stage pipelines lose diagnostic signal.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Jul 2026.
Builds on
20 of 28 references.
References · 20
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2018The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Features as a Perceptual Metriccited by 11,029
- 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
- 2017Neural Discrete Representation Learningcited by 4,650
- 2020Taming Transformers for High-Resolution Image Synthesiscited by 3,229
- 2015Learning Deep Features for Discriminative Localizationcited by 2,430
- 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,278
- 2021SDEdit: Guided Image Synthesis and Editing with Stochastic Differential Equationscited by 1,903
- 2017Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)cited by 1,309
- 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
- 2017Grad-CAM++: Improved Visual Explanations for Deep Convolutional Networkscited by 936
8 more
- 2018RISE: Randomized Input Sampling for Explanation of Black-box Modelscited by 825
- 2021A Gentle Introduction to Conformal Prediction and Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantificationcited by 777
- 2015Autoencoding beyond pixels using a learned similarity metriccited by 407
- 2018Confounding variables can degrade generalization performance of radiological deep learning modelscited by 374
- 2019Beyond temperature scaling: Obtaining well-calibrated multiclass probabilities with Dirichlet calibrationcited by 359
- 2017End-to-end Training for Whole Image Breast Cancer Diagnosis using An All Convolutional Designcited by 87
- 2022VinDr-Mammo: A large-scale benchmark dataset for computer-aided diagnosis in full-field digital mammographycited by 83
- 2020Use HiResCAM instead of Grad-CAM for faithful explanations of convolutional neural networkscited by 79
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.