Identifying Biases in a Multicenter MRI Database for Parkinson's Disease Classification: Is the Disease Classifier a Secret Site Classifier?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sharing multicenter imaging datasets can be advantageous to increase data diversity and size but may lead to spurious correlations between site-related biological and non-biological image features and target labels, which machine learning (ML) models may exploit as shortcuts. To date, studies analyzing how and if deep learning models may use such effects as a shortcut are scarce. Thus, the aim of this work was to investigate if site-related effects are encoded in the feature space of an established deep learning model designed for Parkinson's disease (PD) classification based on T1-weighted MRI datasets. Therefore, all layers of the PD classifier were frozen, except for the last layer of the network, which was replaced by a linear layer that was exclusively re-trained to predict three potential bias types (biological sex, scanner type, and originating site). Our findings based on a large database consisting of 1880 MRI scans collected across 41 centers show that the feature space of the established PD model (74% accuracy) can be used to classify sex (75% accuracy), scanner type (79% accuracy), and site location (71% accuracy) with high accuracies despite this information never being explicitly provided to the PD model during original training. Overall, the results of this study suggest that trained image-based classifiers may use unwanted shortcuts that are not meaningful for the actual clinical task at hand. This finding may explain why many image-based deep learning models do not perform well when applied to data from centers not contributing to the training set.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".