Cited by 114Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)COVID-19 diagnosis using AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Advancing AI interpretability in medical imaging: a comparative analysis of pixel-level interpretability and grad-CAM models

Open access
Ennab, Mohammad, Mcheick, Hamid·2025·Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction

Abstract

This study introduces the Pixel-Level Interpretability (PLI) model, a novel framework designed to address critical limitations in medical imaging diagnostics by enhancing model transparency and diagnostic accuracy. The primary objective is to evaluate PLI’s performance against Gradient-Weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM) and achieve fine-grained interpretability and improved localization precision. The methodology leverages the VGG19 convolutional neural network architecture and utilizes three publicly available COVID-19 chest radiograph datasets, consisting of over 1000 labeled images, which were preprocessed through resizing, normalization, and augmentation to ensure robustness and generalizability. The experiments focused on key performance metrics, including interpretability, structural similarity (SSIM), diagnostic precision, mean squared error (MSE), and computational efficiency. The results demonstrate that PLI significantly outperforms Grad-CAM in all measured dimensions. PLI produced detailed pixel-level heatmaps with higher SSIM scores, reduced MSE, and faster inference times, showcasing its ability to provide granular insights into localized diagnostic features while maintaining computational efficiency. In contrast, Grad-CAM’s explanations often lack the granularity required for clinical reliability. By integrating fuzzy logic to enhance visual and numerical explanations, PLI can deliver interpretable outputs that align with clinical expectations, enabling practitioners to make informed decisions with higher confidence. This work establishes PLI as a robust tool for bridging gaps in AI model transparency and clinical usability. By addressing the challenges of interpretability and accuracy simultaneously, PLI contributes to advancing the integration of AI in healthcare and sets a foundation for broader applications in other high-stake domains.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/make7010012

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ennab, M., & Mcheick, H.
Affiliations
Université du Québec à Chicoutimi (CA)
Corresponding author
Ennab, Mohammad
Venue
Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2025-02-06
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
12
ISSN
2504-4990 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4407192178
Cited by
114
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 45
FWCI
46.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › COVID-19 diagnosis using AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
explainable AI, diagnostic imaging, Grad-CAM, heatmaps, fuzzy logic, VGG19, model transparency, diagnostic accuracy, localization precision

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review