Can saliency maps flag chest radiograph classifier errors at a new hospital? An external validation study

Saliency maps are widely used to explain deep learning predictions in medical imaging, yet visually plausible explanations do not necessarily reflect a model's true decision process and may therefore mislead clinicians. We investigate this problem using a Vision Transformer-based breast MRI classifier trained on the ODELIA Breast MRI Challenge dataset and evaluate multiple saliency methods, including Last-layer Attention, Attention Rollout, Grad-SAM, Gradient Attention Rollout, GMAR, Grad-CAM, and HiResCAM. Our study highlights two often-overlooked challenges in perturbation-based faithfulness evaluation. First, method rankings depend strongly on the perturbation strategy, varying across intensity-based perturbations and transformer-based attention masking. Second, benchmarking saliency methods requires distinguishing between class-specific and class-agnostic explanations. To enable fair comparisons, we introduce non-class-specific variants of gradient-based methods and evaluate both settings separately. Across protocols, Grad-CAM and Gradient Attention Rollout consistently emerged as the strongest class-specific methods, although their relative ranking depended on the evaluation design. These findings expose important limitations of current saliency-based explainability approaches and highlight the need for more robust and standardized evaluation frameworks for trustworthy clinical AI systems.

Saliency maps, offered as evidence that mammography classifiers use the cancer, are untested in dense breasts, which can hide cancers. We tested whether they locate cancers worse there, and why. On 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views, we scored three CNNs' Grad-CAM, Integrated Gradients and occlusion maps by whether their peak hits the lesion and a chance-normalized lesion-to-background saliency ratio (bits; +1 doubles it). Unadjusted gaps were large: Grad-CAM peaks hit 44% of dense vs. 58% of non-dense lesions. Case mix, chiefly more calcifications in dense breasts, explained about half or more of each gap. Occlusion kept a significant average of -0.56 bit gap. Controls also implicate the classifiers: unadjusted gaps exceeded an image-only conspicuity map's, and models relied less on dense-breast lesions. We recommend reporting density gaps before and after case-mix adjustment, per classifier, with conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls.

Attention and saliency heatmaps are widely used to explain medical Vision-Language Model (VLM) outputs on chest X-rays, yet whether they truly highlight the image evidence driving predictions has not been causally tested. We audit faithfulness via overlap with radiologist bounding boxes on PadChest (n=637), attribution mass within radiologist masks on CheXlocalize (n=643), and 16x16 patch-occlusion maps that record which regions, when hidden, change the answer. We study three MedGemma-4B variants, cross-family probes on LLaVA-RAD and Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct, and the specialist CheXagent-2-3b, with two CXR-trained classifiers (DenseNet121, ResNet50) as positive controls. A heatmap is faithful only if the model uses the image and attention concentrates on regions whose occlusion alters the prediction. No evaluated VLM meets both criteria. MedGemma and Qwen3-VL use the image, but attention anti-correlates with patch-occlusion importance (rho < 0 with 95% bootstrap CIs below zero). LLaVA-RAD's attention correlates positively, but the model is almost text-only (99.1% text-only agreement, near-zero causal mass), so correlation ties two near-zero signals. Attention also misses annotated anatomy: overlap with true regions never beats shifted or random controls, and no method places more than 22% of its mass inside radiologist masks. The two CXR classifiers pass all metrics, indicating the failure is specific to VLM heatmaps, not the evaluation. These heatmaps are visually reassuring but not faithful; clinical explanations require controlled localization metrics and causal perturbation, not visual inspection alone.