MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280519765 · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(22)00063-2

AI recognition of patient race in medical imaging: a modelling study

2022· article· en· W4280519765 on OpenAlexaff
Judy Wawira Gichoya, Imon Banerjee, Ananth Reddy Bhimireddy, John L. Burns, Leo Anthony Celi, Li-Ching Chen, Ramón Correa, Natalie Dullerud, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Shih-Cheng Huang, Po‐Chih Kuo, Matthew P. Lungren, Lyle J. Palmer, Brandon J. Price, Saptarshi Purkayastha, Ayis Pyrros, Lauren Oakden‐Rayner, Chima Okechukwu, Laleh Seyyed-Kalantari, Hari Trivedi, Ryan Wang, Zachary Zaiman, Haoran Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Digital Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringMinistry of Science and Technology, TaiwanNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Sleep FoundationNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMedicineDeep learningArtificial intelligenceMedical imagingConfoundingPopulationReceiver operating characteristicModalitiesMachine learningComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous studies in medical imaging have shown disparate abilities of artificial intelligence (AI) to detect a person's race, yet there is no known correlation for race on medical imaging that would be obvious to human experts when interpreting the images. We aimed to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the ability of AI to recognise a patient's racial identity from medical images. METHODS: Using private (Emory CXR, Emory Chest CT, Emory Cervical Spine, and Emory Mammogram) and public (MIMIC-CXR, CheXpert, National Lung Cancer Screening Trial, RSNA Pulmonary Embolism CT, and Digital Hand Atlas) datasets, we evaluated, first, performance quantification of deep learning models in detecting race from medical images, including the ability of these models to generalise to external environments and across multiple imaging modalities. Second, we assessed possible confounding of anatomic and phenotypic population features by assessing the ability of these hypothesised confounders to detect race in isolation using regression models, and by re-evaluating the deep learning models by testing them on datasets stratified by these hypothesised confounding variables. Last, by exploring the effect of image corruptions on model performance, we investigated the underlying mechanism by which AI models can recognise race. FINDINGS: In our study, we show that standard AI deep learning models can be trained to predict race from medical images with high performance across multiple imaging modalities, which was sustained under external validation conditions (x-ray imaging [area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) range 0·91-0·99], CT chest imaging [0·87-0·96], and mammography [0·81]). We also showed that this detection is not due to proxies or imaging-related surrogate covariates for race (eg, performance of possible confounders: body-mass index [AUC 0·55], disease distribution [0·61], and breast density [0·61]). Finally, we provide evidence to show that the ability of AI deep learning models persisted over all anatomical regions and frequency spectrums of the images, suggesting the efforts to control this behaviour when it is undesirable will be challenging and demand further study. INTERPRETATION: The results from our study emphasise that the ability of AI deep learning models to predict self-reported race is itself not the issue of importance. However, our finding that AI can accurately predict self-reported race, even from corrupted, cropped, and noised medical images, often when clinical experts cannot, creates an enormous risk for all model deployments in medical imaging. FUNDING: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, MIDRC grant of National Institutes of Health, US National Science Foundation, National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health, and Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations518
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Digital HealthSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207