Advancing AI interpretability in medical imaging: a comparative analysis of pixel-level interpretability and grad-CAM models
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Grad-CAM explanations are model-dependent (limited to CNNs), with resolution constrained by final convolutional layer dimensions, resulting in insufficient granularity for clinical reliability.
“However, Grad-CAM explanations are model-dependent (limited to CNNs), with resolution constrained by final convolutional layer dimensions, resulting in insufficient granularity for clinical reliability”
From Multimodal neuroimaging and AI integration in cognitive disorders: advances, challenges, and future directions for precision medicine (2026) · cites this paper as Ennab and Mcheick, 2025
Cites
Anchors: High-Precision Model-Agnostic Explanations
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11491 · Cited by 2,162 · see citing works
A Review of Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Sadeghi, Z., Alizadehsani, R., CIFCI, M. A., Kausar, S., Rehman, R., Mahanta, P., Bora, P. K., Almasri, A., Alkhawaldeh, R. S., Hussain, S., et al. (2024) · Computers and Electrical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.compeleceng.2024.109370 · Cited by 598 · see citing works
Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measures
Kumar, I. E., Venkatasubramanian, S., Scheidegger, C., & Friedler, S. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.11097 · Cited by 228 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Anchors, on the other hand, do not maintain invariance across various architectures [57].”
Papadimitroulas, P., Brocki, L., Christopher Chung, N., Marchadour, W., Vermet, F., Gaubert, L., Eleftheriadis, V., Plachouris, D., Visvikis, D., Kagadis, G. C., et al. (2021) · Physica Medica · doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.03.009 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
Model Agnostic Supervised Local Explanations
Plumb, G., Molitor, D., & Talwalkar, A. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1807.02910 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Jha, A., K. Aicher, J., R. Gazzara, M., Singh, D., & Barash, Y. (2020) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-020-02055-7 · Cited by 93 · cited 2× · see citing works
“It heavily depends on the baseline choice and can be expensive since it has to compute the gradients multiple times [28].”
Deep-Learning Model for Screening Sepsis Using Electrocardiography
Kwon, J.-M., Lee, Y. R., Jung, M.-S., Lee, Y.-J., Jo, Y.-Y., Kang, D.-Y., Lee, S. Y., Cho, Y.-H., Shin, J.-H., Ban, J.-H., et al. (2021) · Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13049-021-00953-8 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Abbas, Q., Jeong, W., & Lee, S. W. (2025) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare13172154 · Cited by 236 · see citing works
“It encompasses a wide range of techniques, including model-agnostic methods like LIME (Local Interpret Model-agnostic Explanations) and SHAP (SHapley Additive exPla-nations), as well as model-specific approaches such as decision trees, attention mechanisms, and saliency maps like Grad-CAM [12,13].”
Dang, M., Liu, B., Chen, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2026) · Psychoradiology · doi:10.1093/psyrad/kkag007 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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