Back

Parameter-efficient deep learning for pneumonia detection on chest X-rays: A comparative evaluation of explainable AI methods

Mahtabi, B.; Nasr-Esfahani, E.; Yaraghi, S.

2026-07-16 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.07.14.26358065 medRxiv
Show abstract

Pneumonia is a leading cause of infectious disease mortality worldwide, accounting for approximately 2.5 million deaths annually and 15% of deaths in children under five. Chest X-ray imaging remains the primary diagnostic tool, but accurate interpretation requires radiological expertise that is disproportionately concentrated in high-income settings, creating a diagnostic gap where disease burden is highest. Automated deep learning offers a scalable complement to specialist-dependent diagnosis, yet clinical adoption requires both high accuracy and transparent, interpretable reasoning. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have shown strong potential for pneumonia detection from chest X-rays, but two barriers impede clinical translation: the interpretability of black-box models and the computational feasibility of large architectures in resource-constrained settings. Explainable AI (XAI) methods such as Grad-CAM, Grad-CAM++, and Score-CAM address the interpretability barrier, yet systematic quantitative comparisons across multiple CNN architectures remain scarce. Furthermore, CNN architectures widely used for medical image classification carry high parameter counts that limit feasibility in resource-constrained settings, motivating architectures that achieve competitive accuracy with substantially fewer parameters. Here we propose a parameter-efficient deep learning framework for pneumonia detection based on transfer learning, evaluated across three CNN architectures representing distinct architectural families: EfficientNet-B0 with fine-tuning (proposed method), ResNet50, and DenseNet121, trained under identical conditions on the Kaggle chest X-ray dataset (5,863 images). Our method achieved 90% classification accuracy, outperforming both baselines while requiring 4.8x fewer parameters than ResNet50. To evaluate explainability, Grad-CAM, Grad-CAM++, and Score-CAM were applied across all three architectures and compared quantitatively using Intersection over Union against manually annotated lung segmentation masks, Insertion score, and Deletion score, with pairwise statistical validation via Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and Bonferroni correction. Findings show that classification accuracy and XAI explanation quality must be evaluated independently, and that the proposed parameter-efficient architecture offers a favorable trade-off for resource-constrained clinical deployment.

Matching journals

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

1
Nature Machine Intelligence
70 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.8%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 8%
7.7%
3
IEEE Access
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.1%
4
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.6%
5
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.4%
6
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.8%
7
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
8
European Radiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
9
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.2%
10
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
11
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
12
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
13
Medical Image Analysis
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
14
Patterns
78 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.3%
15
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
16
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
17
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
18
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
19
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
20
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
21
Biomedical Signal Processing and Control
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
22
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.1%
23
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
24
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
25
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
60 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.1%
26
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
27
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
38 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
28
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
29
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 34%
0.6%
30
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
20 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.6%