Skip to main content
. 2022 Jun 22;17(6):e0269323. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269323

Fig 7. Exemplary Grad-CAM heat maps.

Fig 7

(A) Normal NT case with good localization in which the model predicted the correct class with a high (1.00) output probability (true negative). (B) Cystic hygroma case with good localization in which the model predicted the correct class with a high (1.00) output probability (true positive). (C) Normal NT case showing poor localization in which the model predicted this class incorrectly with a 0.90 output probability (false positive). (D) Cystic hygroma case showing poor localization in which the model predicted the correct class, but with an output probability that suggests uncertainty (0.63) (true positive).