Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Brain tumour classifiers are often reported as near-perfect and explainable without checking patient structure or annotations. We reproduced a recent attention framework (SSPANet) on the Figshare dataset (3064 T1-weighted contrast-enhanced slices, 233 patients). Its image-level split is fully patient-leaky; every configuration exceeds 98% accuracy, which drops by 5–9 points on the patient-wise split. Under a fixed training recipe, seven attention modules stayed within ±0.63 points of the plain backbone, whereas the recipe changed accuracy by up to 4.7 points. As a case study, TG-SSPANet uses expert masks to supervise attention, train a segmentation decoder and gate evidence pooling. With ResNet50, it reached 96.8% slice-level and, averaging slice probabilities, 98.3% patient-level accuracy (84.5% if every slice had to be correct; 15% of patients had discordant slices), within the confidence intervals of simpler mask-using pipelines; its attention module added no measurable benefit. Its Grad-CAM++ maps hit the tumour in 81% of held-out slices, but this follows from its decoder by construction, not the classifier’s reasoning. After tumour inpainting, whole-slice models kept 80–86% accuracy, and shuffling the remaining tissue left 60–74%, so location, perilesional cues and tissue statistics cannot be separated. Patient-wise evaluation, same-recipe controls and mask-based faithfulness tests should precede explainability claims.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akter et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: