Papers › Interpreting and Correcting Medical Image Classification with PIP-Net

Interpreting and Correcting Medical Image Classification with PIP-Net

19 Jul 2023arXiv:2307.10404archive 2025-07-28

Meike Nauta, Johannes H. Hegeman, Jeroen Geerdink, Jörg Schlötterer, Maurice van Keulen, Christin Seifert

Part-prototype models are explainable-by-design image classifiers, and a promising alternative to black box AI. This paper explores the applicability and potential of interpretable machine learning, in particular PIP-Net, for automated diagnosis support on real-world medical imaging data. PIP-Net learns human-understandable prototypical image parts and we evaluate its accuracy and interpretability for fracture detection and skin cancer diagnosis. We find that PIP-Net's decision making process is in line with medical classification standards, while only provided with image-level class labels. Because of PIP-Net's unsupervised pretraining of prototypes, data quality problems such as undesired text in an X-ray or labelling errors can be easily identified. Additionally, we are the first to show that humans can manually correct the reasoning of PIP-Net by directly disabling undesired prototypes. We conclude that part-prototype models are promising for medical applications due to their interpretability and potential for advanced model debugging.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

13 samples harvested; 9 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 4 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 13 of the 13 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from m-nauta/pipnet. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections