Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 3, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
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.