Explaining predictions based on multivariate time series data carries the additional difficulty of handling not only multiple features, but also time dependencies. It matters not only what happened, but also when, and the same feature could have a very different impact on a prediction depending on this time information. Previous work has used perturbation-based saliency methods to tackle this issue, perturbing an input using a trainable mask to discover which features at which times are driving the predictions. However these methods introduce fixed perturbations, inspired from similar methods on static data, while there seems to be little motivation to do so on temporal data. In this work, we aim to explain predictions by learning not only masks, but also associated perturbations. We empirically show that learning these perturbations significantly improves the quality of these explanations on time series data.

Lung cancer is by far the leading cause of cancer death in the US. Recent studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of screening using low dose CT (LDCT) in reducing lung cancer related mortality. While lung nodules are detected with a high rate of sensitivity, this exam has a low specificity rate and it is still difficult to separate benign and malignant lesions. The ISBI 2018 Lung Nodule Malignancy Prediction Challenge, developed by a team from the Quantitative Imaging Network of the National Cancer Institute, was focused on the prediction of lung nodule malignancy from two sequential LDCT screening exams using automated (non-manual) algorithms. We curated a cohort of 100 subjects who participated in the National Lung Screening Trial and had established pathological diagnoses. Data from 30 subjects were randomly selected for training and the remaining was used for testing. Participants were evaluated based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of nodule-wise malignancy scores generated by their algorithms on the test set. The challenge had 17 participants, with 11 teams submitting reports with method description, mandated by the challenge rules. Participants used quantitative methods, resulting in a reporting test AUC ranging from 0.698 to 0.913. The top five contestants used deep learning approaches, reporting an AUC between 0.87 - 0.91. The team's predictor did not achieve significant differences from each other nor from a volume change estimate (p =.05 with Bonferroni-Holm's correction).