Kevin H Guo, Nikhil N Chaudhari, Tamara Jafar, Nahian F Chowdhury, Paul Bogdan, Andrei Irimia
{"title":"神经影像深度学习中的解剖可解释性:典型老化和创伤性脑损伤的显著性方法。","authors":"Kevin H Guo, Nikhil N Chaudhari, Tamara Jafar, Nahian F Chowdhury, Paul Bogdan, Andrei Irimia","doi":"10.1007/s12021-024-09694-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The black box nature of deep neural networks (DNNs) makes researchers and clinicians hesitant to rely on their findings. Saliency maps can enhance DNN explainability by suggesting the anatomic localization of relevant brain features. This study compares seven popular attribution-based saliency approaches to assign neuroanatomic interpretability to DNNs that estimate biological brain age (BA) from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Cognitively normal (CN) adults (N = 13,394, 5,900 males; mean age: 65.82 ± 8.89 years) are included for DNN training, testing, validation, and saliency map generation to estimate BA. To study saliency robustness to the presence of anatomic deviations from normality, saliency maps are also generated for adults with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI, <math><mi>N</mi></math> = 214, 135 males; mean age: 55.3 ± 9.9 years). We assess saliency methods' capacities to capture known anatomic features of brain aging and compare them to a surrogate ground truth whose anatomic saliency is known a priori. Anatomic aging features are identified most reliably by the integrated gradients method, which outperforms all others through its ability to localize relevant anatomic features. Gradient Shapley additive explanations, input × gradient, and masked gradient perform less consistently but still highlight ubiquitous neuroanatomic features of aging (ventricle dilation, hippocampal atrophy, sulcal widening). Saliency methods involving gradient saliency, guided backpropagation, and guided gradient-weight class attribution mapping localize saliency outside the brain, which is undesirable. Our research suggests the relative tradeoffs of saliency methods to interpret DNN findings during BA estimation in typical aging and after mTBI.</p>","PeriodicalId":49761,"journal":{"name":"Neuroinformatics","volume":" ","pages":"591-606"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anatomic Interpretability in Neuroimage Deep Learning: Saliency Approaches for Typical Aging and Traumatic Brain Injury.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin H Guo, Nikhil N Chaudhari, Tamara Jafar, Nahian F Chowdhury, Paul Bogdan, Andrei Irimia\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12021-024-09694-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The black box nature of deep neural networks (DNNs) makes researchers and clinicians hesitant to rely on their findings. Saliency maps can enhance DNN explainability by suggesting the anatomic localization of relevant brain features. This study compares seven popular attribution-based saliency approaches to assign neuroanatomic interpretability to DNNs that estimate biological brain age (BA) from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Cognitively normal (CN) adults (N = 13,394, 5,900 males; mean age: 65.82 ± 8.89 years) are included for DNN training, testing, validation, and saliency map generation to estimate BA. To study saliency robustness to the presence of anatomic deviations from normality, saliency maps are also generated for adults with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI, <math><mi>N</mi></math> = 214, 135 males; mean age: 55.3 ± 9.9 years). We assess saliency methods' capacities to capture known anatomic features of brain aging and compare them to a surrogate ground truth whose anatomic saliency is known a priori. Anatomic aging features are identified most reliably by the integrated gradients method, which outperforms all others through its ability to localize relevant anatomic features. Gradient Shapley additive explanations, input × gradient, and masked gradient perform less consistently but still highlight ubiquitous neuroanatomic features of aging (ventricle dilation, hippocampal atrophy, sulcal widening). Saliency methods involving gradient saliency, guided backpropagation, and guided gradient-weight class attribution mapping localize saliency outside the brain, which is undesirable. Our research suggests the relative tradeoffs of saliency methods to interpret DNN findings during BA estimation in typical aging and after mTBI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49761,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuroinformatics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"591-606\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuroinformatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-024-09694-2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroinformatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-024-09694-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Anatomic Interpretability in Neuroimage Deep Learning: Saliency Approaches for Typical Aging and Traumatic Brain Injury.
The black box nature of deep neural networks (DNNs) makes researchers and clinicians hesitant to rely on their findings. Saliency maps can enhance DNN explainability by suggesting the anatomic localization of relevant brain features. This study compares seven popular attribution-based saliency approaches to assign neuroanatomic interpretability to DNNs that estimate biological brain age (BA) from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Cognitively normal (CN) adults (N = 13,394, 5,900 males; mean age: 65.82 ± 8.89 years) are included for DNN training, testing, validation, and saliency map generation to estimate BA. To study saliency robustness to the presence of anatomic deviations from normality, saliency maps are also generated for adults with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI, = 214, 135 males; mean age: 55.3 ± 9.9 years). We assess saliency methods' capacities to capture known anatomic features of brain aging and compare them to a surrogate ground truth whose anatomic saliency is known a priori. Anatomic aging features are identified most reliably by the integrated gradients method, which outperforms all others through its ability to localize relevant anatomic features. Gradient Shapley additive explanations, input × gradient, and masked gradient perform less consistently but still highlight ubiquitous neuroanatomic features of aging (ventricle dilation, hippocampal atrophy, sulcal widening). Saliency methods involving gradient saliency, guided backpropagation, and guided gradient-weight class attribution mapping localize saliency outside the brain, which is undesirable. Our research suggests the relative tradeoffs of saliency methods to interpret DNN findings during BA estimation in typical aging and after mTBI.
期刊介绍:
Neuroinformatics publishes original articles and reviews with an emphasis on data structure and software tools related to analysis, modeling, integration, and sharing in all areas of neuroscience research. The editors particularly invite contributions on: (1) Theory and methodology, including discussions on ontologies, modeling approaches, database design, and meta-analyses; (2) Descriptions of developed databases and software tools, and of the methods for their distribution; (3) Relevant experimental results, such as reports accompanie by the release of massive data sets; (4) Computational simulations of models integrating and organizing complex data; and (5) Neuroengineering approaches, including hardware, robotics, and information theory studies.