MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200501894 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-943804/v1

Biased Data, Biased AI: Deep Networks Predict the Acquisition Site of TCGA Images

2021· preprint· en· W4200501894 on OpenAlexaff
Taher Dehkharghanian, Azam Asilian Bidgoli, Abtin Riasatian, Pooria Mazaheri, Clinton J.V. Campbell, Liron Pantanowitz, Hamid R. Tizhoosh, Shahryar Rahnamayan

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital pathologyComputer scienceDemographicsArtificial intelligenceDeep learningScope (computer science)Machine learningData sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Demography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Deep learning models applied to healthcare applications including digital pathology have been increasing their scope and importance in recent years. Many of these models have been trained on The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) atlas of digital images, or use it as a validation source. This study shows that there are tissue source site (tss) specific patterns of TCGA images that could be used to identify contributing institutions without any explicit training. Furthermore, it was observed that a model trained for cancer subtype classification has discovered such tss specific patterns within digital slides to classify cancer types. Digital scanner configuration and noise, tissue stain variation and artifacts, and source site patient demographics are among factors that likely account for the observed bias. Therefore, researchers should be cautious of such bias when using histopathology datasets for developing and training deep networks.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0050.010
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207