MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396894318 · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01118-4

Shortcut learning in medical AI hinders generalization: method for estimating AI model generalization without external data

2024· article· en· W4396894318 on OpenAlexafffund
Cathy Ong Ly, Balagopal Unnikrishnan, Tony Tadic, Tirth Patel, Joe Duhamel, Sonja Kandel, Yasbanoo Moayedi, Michael Brudno, Andrew Hope, Heather J. Ross, Chris McIntosh

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Digital Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreVector InstituteUniversity Health NetworkToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoTed Rogers Centre for Heart Research
FundersUniversity of TorontoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity Health NetworkCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsGeneralizationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Healthcare datasets are becoming larger and more complex, necessitating the development of accurate and generalizable AI models for medical applications. Unstructured datasets, including medical imaging, electrocardiograms, and natural language data, are gaining attention with advancements in deep convolutional neural networks and large language models. However, estimating the generalizability of these models to new healthcare settings without extensive validation on external data remains challenging. In experiments across 13 datasets including X-rays, CTs, ECGs, clinical discharge summaries, and lung auscultation data, our results demonstrate that model performance is frequently overestimated by up to 20% on average due to shortcut learning of hidden data acquisition biases (DAB). Shortcut learning refers to a phenomenon in which an AI model learns to solve a task based on spurious correlations present in the data as opposed to features directly related to the task itself. We propose an open source, bias-corrected external accuracy estimate, P E s t , that better estimates external accuracy to within 4% on average by measuring and calibrating for DAB-induced shortcut learning.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.360 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations65
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Digital MedicineSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207