Do Saliency Maps Fail Dense Breasts? A Chance-Normalized, Confounder-Aware Audit of Explanation Fairness in Mammography

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 are offered as a safeguard for medical image classifiers, but whether they reveal individual errors at a new hospital remains largely untested. We trained a convolutional network and a vision transformer on NIH ChestX-ray14 and evaluated 303,768 decisions per model at the training hospital and at two external sites, in the USA and Vietnam, with radiologist-consensus labels. We scored each explanation by its anatomical enrichment, the area-normalized concentration of attribution in a segmented thoracic region, and tested whether it detects errors beyond the model's confidence. Grad-CAM localized findings less often than radiologists (hit rate at most 0.575 versus 0.888). Adding enrichment to a confidence-based error detector calibrated at the training hospital never raised its area under the curve by more than 0.011, and for the convolutional network the relation between enrichment and correctness reversed between hospitals, degrading the transferred detector. Model confidence, not saliency, should anchor deployment monitoring.

Purpose: To compare four multimodal large language models (MLLMs) with radiologists of varying expertise in breast density assessment, BI-RADS assessment, biopsy candidacy determination, and continuous malignancy probability estimation using digital mammography (DM) and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). Methods: This study included 179 women with paired DM/CEM examinations and reference standards. Four MLLMs (ChatGPT-5.2, Gemini-3.1 Pro, Sonnet-4.6, Muse Spark) interpreted images with and without masks; three radiologists interpreted non-masked images. Results: For binary density classification on DM, radiologist accuracies ranged from 55.81% to 78.60%, exceeding most MLLM values (62.33%-71.63%), while masks added limited benefit. Five-category BI-RADS accuracies were higher for radiologists on DM (56.74-67.44%) and CEM (62.33-82.79%) compared with MLLMs (DM 31.16-45.12%; CEM 40.00-55.81%). Binary biopsy-candidacy accuracies were likewise higher for radiologists (DM 85.12-89.77%; CEM 86.98-92.09%) than for MLLMs (DM 61.39-75.35%; CEM 69.30-82.79%), although CEM improved performance across all readers. Lesion masks substantially improved MLLM continuous malignancy-probability accuracies from 64.65%-71.63% to 72.56-78.60% on DM and from 67.91%-77.21% to 72.56%-81.86% on CEM, approaching radiologist ranges (DM 63.72-82.79%; CEM 81.86-88.84%). The corresponding AUCs for the top masked models overlapped those of the human readers. Overall, Muse Spark, followed by Sonnet-4.6, demonstrated the strongest performance among the MLLMs across domains. Conclusion: Radiologists generally outperformed MLLMs in categorical tasks, while selected masked models approached human performance for continuous malignancy probability estimation, suggesting a potential adjunctive role.