Comparative evaluation reveals distinct speed and diagnostic safety trade-offs among KAN variants for liver ultrasound, highlighting model selection nuances for clinical screening.
To compare pykan and Lightweight KAN with MLP and Linear classifier heads for focal liver lesion classification on B-mode ultrasound, with emphasis on diagnostic sensitivity, interpretability and computational cost. A frozen ResNet18 feature extractor was combined with 4 classifier heads and evaluated on 735 annotated liver ultrasound images (Benign, Malignant, Normal) using 5-fold stratified cross-validation. Weighted cross-entropy was applied to address class imbalance. Performance was assessed using Accuracy, F1-Macro, F1-Weighted, AUROC, class-wise recall, malignant-to-normal misclassification count, inference latency, and pykan-specific spline activeness analysis. Overall metrics were similar across models, and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank testing showed no statistically significant pairwise differences ( p > .05). However, clinically relevant class-level differences emerged. pykan achieved the highest Benign recall (65.5%) and the lowest malignant-to-normal error rate (5/435, 1.1%). Lightweight KAN achieved the highest Malignant recall (82.1%) and markedly faster inference (0.69 ms/image) than pykan (4183.67 ms/image). Aggregate metrics alone do not capture clinically meaningful trade-offs among KAN implementations. Lightweight KAN is attractive for rapid screening, whereas pykan shows a directional trend toward fewer malignant-to-normal errors and a more interpretable profile, though this trend did not reach statistical significance and requires confirmation in larger studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saim Ervural (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: