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