Back

Benchmarking attention-based methods for vision transformers' interpretability in retinal fundus imaging

Bors, S.; Beyeler, M.; Trofimova, O.; VascX Consortium, ; Presby, D.; Bontempi, D.; Bergmann, S.

2026-06-18 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.06.15.732470 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Deep learning models based on Vision Transformers (ViTs) have shown strong performance in retinal fundus imaging, but their interpretability remains poorly understood. In particular, attention-based attribution methods are widely used to explain ViT predictions, despite limited evaluation of their faithfulness and biological relevance in medical imaging. Here, we systematically benchmark four attention-based interpretability methods for RETFound, a retinal ViT-based foundation model, that we previously fine-tuned to predict 17 retinal vascular phenotypes from UK Biobank fundus images1. We compare raw attention, attention rollout, gradient-weighted attention rollout, and Chefers hybrid relevance-based method using both qualitative visualisation and quantitative evaluation frameworks. To assess attribution faithfulness, we perform perturbation-based deletion and insertion experiments, quantifying changes in model predictions as highly attended image regions are progressively removed or restored. To evaluate biological specificity, we run structure-aware analyses combining attribution maps with vessel segmentation and artery-vein labels through the Relative ratio of Attention Intensity (RAI) metric. Across models, attribution maps differed substantially depending on the selected interpretability method, highlighting the need for rigorous quantitative evaluation. Among the evaluated approaches, gradient-weighted attention rollout consistently achieved the strongest perturbation performance and produced attribution maps most closely aligned with the anatomical definition of the predicted retinal traits. Furthermore, vessel-type specific models systematically concentrate attention on the corresponding vascular structures despite being trained using only a single scalar value per image as supervision. These findings demonstrate that attention-based attribution methods capture biologically meaningful vascular representations, while also revealing method-dependent variability in attribution behaviour. This work provides a quantitative framework for evaluating interpretability methods in medical imaging with annotated segmentation and contributes toward more transparent and biologically grounded medical AI systems.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 2%
13.6%
2
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.1%
3
Medical Image Analysis
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.2%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 6%
8.2%
5
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 4%
5.0%
6
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.2%
7
Nature Machine Intelligence
70 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
8
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 40%
2.8%
9
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.5%
10
Advanced Intelligent Systems
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.2%
11
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
12
Nature Methods
385 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.8%
13
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
14
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
15
Bioinformatics Advances
203 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
16
New Phytologist
346 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
17
Advanced Science
286 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.6%
18
Briefings in Bioinformatics
354 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.5%
19
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
20
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
21
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
22
IEEE Access
35 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
23
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
24
Patterns
78 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
25
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 25%
1.0%
26
Nature Biomedical Engineering
47 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
27
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 38%
0.6%
28
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
29
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
30
BMC Bioinformatics
457 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%