Back

Explainable, Lightweight Deep Learning for Colorectal Cancer Microsatellite Instability Screening in Low-Resource Settings

Adegbosin, O. T.; Patel, H.

2026-04-20 oncology
10.64898/2026.04.18.26350809 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundMicrosatellite stability status determination is important for prognostication and therapeutic decision making in colorectal cancer management, but the conventional methods for this assessment are not readily available, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Deep learning (DL) models have been proposed for addressing this problem; however, potential computational cost due to model complexity and inadequate explainability may limit their adoption in low-resource settings. This study explored the potential of explainable lightweight models for detection of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. MethodsDL models were trained using a public dataset of colorectal cancer histology images and then used to classify a set of test images into one of two classes: microsatellite instability or microsatellite stability. The models were compared for efficiency. Gradient-weighted class activation mapping (Grad-CAM) was used to interpret the models decision making. ResultsThe simpler convolutional neural network (CNN) trained from scratch had modest performance (accuracy=0.757, area under receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUROC]=0.840). With an attention mechanism added, these values increased, but specificity and sensitivity reduced. Pretrained models performed better than the ones trained from scratch, and EfficientNet_B0 had the best balance of high performance and low computational requirements (accuracy=0.936, AUROC=0.990, negative predictive value=0.923, specificity=0.953, 4,010,000 trainable parameters, 0.38 gigaFLOPs). However, a simple CNN model with attention mechanism had the best interpretability based on Grad-CAM. ConclusionThis study demonstrated that DL models that are lightweight when compared to previously proposed ones can be useful for colorectal cancer microsatellite instability screening in resource-limited settings while balancing performance and computational efficiency.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.4%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 16%
12.2%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 13%
7.1%
4
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.7%
5
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
6
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
7
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 12%
2.7%
8
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
9
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.3%
10
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
11
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.1%
12
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.9%
13
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
45 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
14
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
16
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
17
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
18
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
19
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
20
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
21
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
22
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
23
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
24
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
25
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
26
Brain and Behavior
37 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
28
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
29
Journal of Pathology Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
30
BioData Mining
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%