MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290033826 · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32186-3

Addressing fairness in artificial intelligence for medical imaging

2022· article· en· W4290033826 on OpenAlexfundno aff
María Agustina Ricci Lara, Rodrigo Echeveste, Enzo Ferrante

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgencia Nacional de Promoción de la Investigación, el Desarrollo Tecnológico y la InnovaciónForsknings- og InnovationsstyrelsenUniversidad Nacional del LitoralMinisterio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación ProductivaAgencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y TecnológicaConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y TécnicasInternational Development Research CentreStyrelsen för Internationellt Utvecklingssamarbete
KeywordsComputer scienceField (mathematics)Meaning (existential)Data scienceState (computer science)Work (physics)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Risk analysis (engineering)Artificial intelligenceManagement sciencePsychologyMedicinePhysicsPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A plethora of work has shown that AI systems can systematically and unfairly be biased against certain populations in multiple scenarios. The field of medical imaging, where AI systems are beginning to be increasingly adopted, is no exception. Here we discuss the meaning of fairness in this area and comment on the potential sources of biases, as well as the strategies available to mitigate them. Finally, we analyze the current state of the field, identifying strengths and highlighting areas of vacancy, challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

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)0.120
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.289
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1200.289
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.023
Scholarly communication0.0110.014
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0080.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.302
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations195
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207