Cited by 26Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)AI in cancer detectionCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management

Validating Automatic Concept-Based Explanations for AI-Based Digital Histopathology

Open access
Sauter, Daniel, Lodde, Georg, Nensa, Felix, Schadendorf, Dirk, Livingstone, Elisabeth, Kukuk, Markus·2022·Sensors

Abstract

Digital histopathology poses several challenges such as label noise, class imbalance, limited availability of labelled data, and several latent biases to deep learning, negatively influencing transparency, reproducibility, and classification performance. In particular, biases are well known to cause poor generalization. Proposed tools from explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), bias detection, and bias discovery suffer from technical challenges, complexity, unintuitive usage, inherent biases, or a semantic gap. A promising XAI method, not studied in the context of digital histopathology is automated concept-based explanation (ACE). It automatically extracts visual concepts from image data. Our objective is to evaluate ACE’s technical validity following design science principals and to compare it to Guided Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM), a conventional pixel-wise explanation method. To that extent, we created and studied five convolutional neural networks (CNNs) in four different skin cancer settings. Our results demonstrate that ACE is a valid tool for gaining insights into the decision process of histopathological CNNs that can go beyond explanations from the control method. ACE validly visualized a class sampling ratio bias, measurement bias, sampling bias, and class-correlated bias. Furthermore, the complementary use with Guided Grad-CAM offers several benefits. Finally, we propose practical solutions for several technical challenges. In contradiction to results from the literature, we noticed lower intuitiveness in some dermatopathology scenarios as compared to concept-based explanations on real-world images.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/s22145346

Cites

94 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [24]Anders C.J. Neumann D. Marinc T. Samek W. Müller K.-R. Lapuschkin S. XAI for Analyzing and Unlearning Spurious Correlations in ImageNet Proceedings of the 2020 ICML Workshop on Extending Explainable AI Beyond Deep Models and Classifiers (XXAI) Vienna, Austria 17 July 2020
  2. [91]Maas A.L. Hannun A.Y. Ng A.Y. Rectifier Nonlinearities Improve Neural Network Acoustic Models Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning Atlanta, GA, USA 16–21 June 2013

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sauter, D., Lodde, G., Nensa, F., Schadendorf, D., Livingstone, E., & Kukuk, M.
Affiliations
  • Dortmund University of Applied Sciences and Arts (DE)
  • Essen University Hospital (DE)
Corresponding author
Sauter, Daniel
Venue
Sensors
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-07-18
Volume
22
Issue
14
Pages
5346
ISSN
1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4285803300
Cited by
26
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
FWCI
1.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Universitätsbibliographie, Universität Duisburg-Essen (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DuEPublico (University of Duisburg-Essen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • DFG Research Training Group (WisPerMed)
  • University of Duisburg-Essen (WisPerMed)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Keywords
digital histopathology, explainable AI, skin cancer classification, dermatopathology, bias detection, measurement bias, sampling bias, Grad-CAM, convolutional neural networks, model interpretability
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Skin Neoplasms, Reproducibility of Results, Neural Networks, Computer

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