Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Interpretability of Machine Learning Methods Applied to Neuroimaging

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2204.07005 v1 pith:VUZIHIGB submitted 2022-04-14 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LGq-bio.NCq-bio.QM

classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LGq-bio.NCq-bio.QM
keywords methodsinterpretabilitylearningneuroimagingreliabilityassessbeendeep
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Deep learning methods have become very popular for the processing of natural images, and were then successfully adapted to the neuroimaging field. As these methods are non-transparent, interpretability methods are needed to validate them and ensure their reliability. Indeed, it has been shown that deep learning models may obtain high performance even when using irrelevant features, by exploiting biases in the training set. Such undesirable situations can potentially be detected by using interpretability methods. Recently, many methods have been proposed to interpret neural networks. However, this domain is not mature yet. Machine learning users face two major issues when aiming to interpret their models: which method to choose, and how to assess its reliability? Here, we aim at providing answers to these questions by presenting the most common interpretability methods and metrics developed to assess their reliability, as well as their applications and benchmarks in the neuroimaging context. Note that this is not an exhaustive survey: we aimed to focus on the studies which we found to be the most representative and relevant.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools