A generalized framework to predict continuous scores from medical ordinal labels

Many variables of interest in clinical medicine, like disease severity, are recorded using discrete ordinal categories such as normal/mild/moderate/severe. These labels are used to train and evaluate disease severity prediction models. However, ordinal categories represent a simplification of an underlying continuous severity spectrum. Using continuous scores instead of ordinal categories is more sensitive to detecting small changes in disease severity over time. Here, we present a generalized framework that accurately predicts continuously valued variables using only discrete ordinal labels during model development. We found that for three clinical prediction tasks, models that take the ordinal relationship of the training labels into account outperformed conventional multi-class classification models. Particularly the continuous scores generated by ordinal classification and regression models showed a significantly higher correlation with expert rankings of disease severity and lower mean squared errors compared to the multi-class classification models. Furthermore, the use of MC dropout significantly improved the ability of all evaluated deep learning approaches to predict continuously valued scores that truthfully reflect the underlying continuous target variable. We showed that accurate continuously valued predictions can be generated even if the model development only involves discrete ordinal labels. The novel framework has been validated on three different clinical prediction tasks and has proven to bridge the gap between discrete ordinal labels and the underlying continuously valued variables.

Assessing the (Un)Trustworthiness of Saliency Maps for Localizing Abnormalities in Medical Imaging

Saliency maps have become a widely used method to make deep learning models more interpretable by providing post-hoc explanations of classifiers through identification of the most pertinent areas of the input medical image. They are increasingly being used in medical imaging to provide clinically plausible explanations for the decisions the neural network makes. However, the utility and robustness of these visualization maps has not yet been rigorously examined in the context of medical imaging. We posit that trustworthiness in this context requires 1) localization utility, 2) sensitivity to model weight randomization, 3) repeatability, and 4) reproducibility. Using the localization information available in two large public radiology datasets, we quantify the performance of eight commonly used saliency map approaches for the above criteria using area under the precision-recall curves (AUPRC) and structural similarity index (SSIM), comparing their performance to various baseline measures. Using our framework to quantify the trustworthiness of saliency maps, we show that all eight saliency map techniques fail at least one of the criteria and are, in most cases, less trustworthy when compared to the baselines. We suggest that their usage in the high-risk domain of medical imaging warrants additional scrutiny and recommend that detection or segmentation models be used if localization is the desired output of the network. Additionally, to promote reproducibility of our findings, we provide the code we used for all tests performed in this work at this link: https://github.com/QTIM-Lab/Assessing-Saliency-Maps.