Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
PurposeDeep convolutional neural networks (CNN) provide high accuracy for automatic classification of dopamine transporter (DAT) SPECT images. However, CNN are inherently black-box in nature lacking any kind of explanation for their decisions. This limits their acceptance for clinical use. This study tested layer-wise relevance propagation (LRP) to explain CNN-based classification of DAT-SPECT in patients with clinically uncertain parkinsonian syndromes.MethodsThe study retrospectively included 1296 clinical DAT-SPECT with visual binary interpretation as "normal" or "reduced" by two experienced readers as standard-of-truth. A custom-made CNN was trained with 1008 randomly selected DAT-SPECT. The remaining 288 DAT-SPECT were used to assess classification performance of the CNN and to test LRP for explanation of the CNN-based classification.ResultsOverall accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the CNN were 95.8%, 92.8%, and 98.7%, respectively. LRP provided relevance maps that were easy to interpret in each individual DAT-SPECT. In particular, the putamen in the hemisphere most affected by nigrostriatal degeneration was the most relevant brain region for CNN-based classification in all reduced DAT-SPECT. Some misclassified DAT-SPECT showed an "inconsistent" relevance map more typical for the true class label.ConclusionLRP is useful to provide explanation of CNN-based decisions in individual DAT-SPECT and, therefore, can be recommended to support CNN-based classification of DAT-SPECT in clinical routine. Total computation time of 3 s is compatible with busy clinical workflow. The utility of "inconsistent" relevance maps to identify misclassified cases requires further investigation.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.