Papers › Looking into Concept Explanation Methods for Diabetic Retinopathy Classification

Looking into Concept Explanation Methods for Diabetic Retinopathy Classification

4 Oct 2024arXiv:2410.03188archive 2025-07-28

Andrea M. Storås, Josefine V. Sundgaard

Diabetic retinopathy is a common complication of diabetes, and monitoring the progression of retinal abnormalities using fundus imaging is crucial. Because the images must be interpreted by a medical expert, it is infeasible to screen all individuals with diabetes for diabetic retinopathy. Deep learning has shown impressive results for automatic analysis and grading of fundus images. One drawback is, however, the lack of interpretability, which hampers the implementation of such systems in the clinic. Explainable artificial intelligence methods can be applied to explain the deep neural networks. Explanations based on concepts have shown to be intuitive for humans to understand, but have not yet been explored in detail for diabetic retinopathy grading. This work investigates and compares two concept-based explanation techniques for explaining deep neural networks developed for automatic diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors and Concept Bottleneck Models. We found that both methods have strengths and weaknesses, and choice of method should take the available data and the end user's preferences into account.

PaperPDFCode

Code

andreastoraas/conceptexplanations_dr_grading officialmentioned in paperpytorch report

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

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Diabetic Retinopathy GradingExplainable artificial intelligence

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