Machine Learning and Bias in Medical Imaging: Opportunities and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bias in health care has been well documented and results in disparate and worsened outcomes for at-risk groups. Medical imaging plays a critical role in facilitating patient diagnoses but involves multiple sources of bias including factors related to access to imaging modalities, acquisition of images, and assessment (ie, interpretation) of imaging data. Machine learning (ML) applied to diagnostic imaging has demonstrated the potential to improve the quality of imaging-based diagnosis and the precision of measuring imaging-based traits. Algorithms can leverage subtle information not visible to the human eye to detect underdiagnosed conditions or derive new disease phenotypes by linking imaging features with clinical outcomes, all while mitigating cognitive bias in interpretation. Importantly, however, the application of ML to diagnostic imaging has the potential to either reduce or propagate bias. Understanding the potential gain as well as the potential risks requires an understanding of how and what ML models learn. Common risks of propagating bias can arise from unbalanced training, suboptimal architecture design or selection, and uneven application of models. Notwithstanding these risks, ML may yet be applied to improve gain from imaging across all 3A's (access, acquisition, and assessment) for all patients. In this review, we present a framework for understanding the balance of opportunities and challenges for minimizing bias in medical imaging, how ML may improve current approaches to imaging, and what specific design considerations should be made as part of efforts to maximize the quality of health care for all.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".