Systematic auditing is essential to debiasing machine learning in biology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biases in data used to train machine learning (ML) models can inflate their prediction performance and confound our understanding of how and what they learn. Although biases are common in biological data, systematic auditing of ML models to identify and eliminate these biases is not a common practice when applying ML in the life sciences. Here we devise a systematic, principled, and general approach to audit ML models in the life sciences. We use this auditing framework to examine biases in three ML applications of therapeutic interest and identify unrecognized biases that hinder the ML process and result in substantially reduced model performance on new datasets. Ultimately, we show that ML models tend to learn primarily from data biases when there is insufficient signal in the data to learn from. We provide detailed protocols, guidelines, and examples of code to enable tailoring of the auditing framework to other biomedical applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.105 | 0.384 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".