Evaluating Kolmogorov-Arnold Network Implementations for Medical Ultrasound Image Classification: A Trade-off Analysis of Computational Cost, Interpretability, and Diagnostic Safety.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q1 ACOUSTICS
Saim Ervural
{"title":"Evaluating Kolmogorov-Arnold Network Implementations for Medical Ultrasound Image Classification: A Trade-off Analysis of Computational Cost, Interpretability, and Diagnostic Safety.","authors":"Saim Ervural","doi":"10.1177/01617346261476280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To compare pykan and Lightweight KAN with MLP and Linear classifier heads for focal liver lesion classification on B-mode ultrasound, with emphasis on diagnostic sensitivity, interpretability and computational cost. A frozen ResNet18 feature extractor was combined with 4 classifier heads and evaluated on 735 annotated liver ultrasound images (Benign, Malignant, Normal) using 5-fold stratified cross-validation. Weighted cross-entropy was applied to address class imbalance. Performance was assessed using Accuracy, F1-Macro, F1-Weighted, AUROC, class-wise recall, malignant-to-normal misclassification count, inference latency, and pykan-specific spline activeness analysis. Overall metrics were similar across models, and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank testing showed no statistically significant pairwise differences (<i>p</i> > .05). However, clinically relevant class-level differences emerged. pykan achieved the highest Benign recall (65.5%) and the lowest malignant-to-normal error rate (5/435, 1.1%). Lightweight KAN achieved the highest Malignant recall (82.1%) and markedly faster inference (0.69 ms/image) than pykan (4183.67 ms/image). Aggregate metrics alone do not capture clinically meaningful trade-offs among KAN implementations. Lightweight KAN is attractive for rapid screening, whereas pykan shows a directional trend toward fewer malignant-to-normal errors and a more interpretable profile, though this trend did not reach statistical significance and requires confirmation in larger studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":49401,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasonic Imaging","volume":" ","pages":"1617346261476280"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasonic Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01617346261476280","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ACOUSTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To compare pykan and Lightweight KAN with MLP and Linear classifier heads for focal liver lesion classification on B-mode ultrasound, with emphasis on diagnostic sensitivity, interpretability and computational cost. A frozen ResNet18 feature extractor was combined with 4 classifier heads and evaluated on 735 annotated liver ultrasound images (Benign, Malignant, Normal) using 5-fold stratified cross-validation. Weighted cross-entropy was applied to address class imbalance. Performance was assessed using Accuracy, F1-Macro, F1-Weighted, AUROC, class-wise recall, malignant-to-normal misclassification count, inference latency, and pykan-specific spline activeness analysis. Overall metrics were similar across models, and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank testing showed no statistically significant pairwise differences (p > .05). However, clinically relevant class-level differences emerged. pykan achieved the highest Benign recall (65.5%) and the lowest malignant-to-normal error rate (5/435, 1.1%). Lightweight KAN achieved the highest Malignant recall (82.1%) and markedly faster inference (0.69 ms/image) than pykan (4183.67 ms/image). Aggregate metrics alone do not capture clinically meaningful trade-offs among KAN implementations. Lightweight KAN is attractive for rapid screening, whereas pykan shows a directional trend toward fewer malignant-to-normal errors and a more interpretable profile, though this trend did not reach statistical significance and requires confirmation in larger studies.

评估医学超声图像分类的Kolmogorov-Arnold网络实现:计算成本,可解释性和诊断安全性的权衡分析。
比较pykan和Lightweight KAN与MLP和Linear分类器头部在b超上对局灶性肝脏病变的诊断敏感性、可解释性和计算成本。冷冻的ResNet18特征提取器与4个分类器头相结合,对735张带注释的肝脏超声图像(良性、恶性、正常)进行5次分层交叉验证。采用加权交叉熵来解决类不平衡问题。使用准确性、F1-Macro、F1-Weighted、AUROC、分类召回率、恶性到正常错误分类计数、推断延迟和pykan特异性样条活跃度分析来评估性能。各模型的总体指标相似,Wilcoxon Signed-Rank检验显示两两差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。然而,出现了临床相关的分类水平差异。pykan的良性召回率最高(65.5%),恶性误差率最低(5/435,1.1%)。轻量级KAN获得了最高的恶性召回率(82.1%),并且显著快于pykan (4183.67 ms/image)的推断速度(0.69 ms/image)。单独的综合指标不能捕获KAN实现之间有临床意义的权衡。轻量级KAN对于快速筛查很有吸引力,而pykan显示出更少的恶性到正常错误和更可解释的趋势,尽管这一趋势没有达到统计学意义,需要在更大规模的研究中得到证实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ultrasonic Imaging
Ultrasonic Imaging 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
8.70%
发文量
15
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ultrasonic Imaging provides rapid publication for original and exceptional papers concerned with the development and application of ultrasonic-imaging technology. Ultrasonic Imaging publishes articles in the following areas: theoretical and experimental aspects of advanced methods and instrumentation for imaging
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书