Do Saliency Maps Fail Dense Breasts? A Chance-Normalized, Confounder-Aware Audit of Explanation Fairness in Mammography

概要

Saliency maps, offered as evidence that mammography classifiers use the cancer, are untested in dense breasts, which can hide cancers. We tested whether they locate cancers worse there, and why. On 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views, we scored three CNNs' Grad-CAM, Integrated Gradients and occlusion maps by whether their peak hits the lesion and a chance-normalized lesion-to-background saliency ratio (bits; +1 doubles it). Unadjusted gaps were large: Grad-CAM peaks hit 44% of dense vs. 58% of non-dense lesions. Case mix, chiefly more calcifications in dense breasts, explained about half or more of each gap. Occlusion kept a significant average of -0.56 bit gap. Controls also implicate the classifiers: unadjusted gaps exceeded an image-only conspicuity map's, and models relied less on dense-breast lesions. We recommend reporting density gaps before and after case-mix adjustment, per classifier, with conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls.

参考リンク

• Paper ↗

リンク先のライセンス・再現性・データ条件をご確認ください。自動分類や実装の目安は保証ではありません。

実装を始めるプロンプト

参考リンクを確認したうえで、次の内容をコピーして利用できます。

# 論文・記事
Do Saliency Maps Fail Dense Breasts? A Chance-Normalized, Confounder-Aware Audit of Explanation Fairness in Mammography

# 概要
Saliency maps, offered as evidence that mammography classifiers use the cancer, are untested in dense breasts, which can hide cancers. We tested whether they locate cancers worse there, and why.

# 原典
https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909

上記の手法を実装してください。実行前に依存関係とライセンスを確認してください。