Bias reduction in representation of histopathology images using deep feature selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Appearing traces of bias in deep networks is a serious reliability issue which can play a significant role in ethics and generalization related concerns. Recent studies report that the deep features extracted from the histopathology images of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), the largest publicly available archive, are surprisingly able to accurately classify the whole slide images (WSIs) based on their acquisition site while these features are extracted to primarily discriminate cancer types. This is clear evidence that the utilized Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) unexpectedly detect the specific patterns of the source site, i.e, the hospital of origin, rather than histomorphologic patterns, a biased behavior resulting in degraded trust and generalization. This observation motivated us to propose a method to alleviate the destructive impact of hospital bias through a novel feature selection process. To this effect, we have proposed an evolutionary strategy to select a small set of optimal features to not only accurately represent the histological patterns of tissue samples but also to eliminate the features contributing to internal bias toward the institution. The defined objective function for an optimal subset selection of features is to minimize the accuracy of the model to classify the source institutions which is basically defined as a bias indicator. By the conducted experiments, the selected features extracted by the state-of-the-art network trained on TCGA images (i.e., the KimiaNet), considerably decreased the institutional bias, while improving the quality of features to discriminate the cancer types. In addition, the selected features could significantly improve the results of external validation compared to the entire set of features which has been negatively affected by bias. The proposed scheme is a model-independent approach which can be employed when it is possible to define a bias indicator as a participating objective in a feature selection process; even with unknown bias sources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".