Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study critiques existing post-hoc explainable AI (XAI) methods in the context of ECG classification, revealing that many popular gradient-based techniques misrepresent model behavior by focusing on signal amplitude rather than clinically relevant features. By leveraging clinical guidelines for ECG interpretation, the authors introduce a global evaluation framework that aggregates explanations across heartbeats, leading to insights about the systematic failures of these methods. The results indicate that nine out of thirteen evaluated methods performed below chance for at least one condition, highlighting the need for more reliable XAI approaches in medical applications.
Gradient-based XAI methods often misinterpret ECG signals, prioritizing amplitude over clinically significant features, with some methods failing to provide reliable explanations entirely.
Explainable AI (XAI) is used to assess whether artificial intelligence models rely on meaningful patterns, yet explanations that appear plausible for individual predictions may systematically misrepresent model behavior. This is particularly problematic in medicine, where models may rely on irrelevant signal characteristics rather than disease-specific patterns without being recognizable. We address this challenge using electrocardiogram (ECG) data, for which clinical guidelines provide explicit knowledge about diagnostically relevant signal regions. We introduce a global, guideline-grounded framework that aggregates explanations across heartbeats to evaluate them against clinically defined regions of interest. Using four binary classifiers trained on PTB-XL, we assess 13 gradient-based methods across two categories of patterns: low-amplitude segments and high-amplitude QRS morphology. Our results reveal a systematic failure of methods transferred from computer vision. Their explanations often follow signal amplitude rather than clinical relevance, with mean Spearman correlations up to 0.69, leading them to overlook diagnostically decisive low-amplitude regions. For ischemia, LRP-$\epsilon$ assigns only 4.6% of relevance to the ST segment, compared with 63.8% for LRP-SIGN. Nine of 13 methods fall below chance for at least one condition, indicating inconsistent reliability across patterns. These findings show that global, domain-grounded evaluation can uncover systematic explanation failures not obvious from sample-level heatmaps.