Towards objective and systematic evaluation of bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Artificial intelligence (AI) models trained using medical images for clinical tasks often exhibit bias in the form of subgroup performance disparities. However, since not all sources of bias in real-world medical imaging data are easily identifiable, it is challenging to comprehensively assess their impacts. In this article, we introduce an analysis framework for systematically and objectively investigating the impact of biases in medical images on AI models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our framework utilizes synthetic neuroimages with known disease effects and sources of bias. We evaluated the impact of bias effects and the efficacy of 3 bias mitigation strategies in counterfactual data scenarios on a convolutional neural network (CNN) classifier. RESULTS: The analysis revealed that training a CNN model on the datasets containing bias effects resulted in expected subgroup performance disparities. Moreover, reweighing was the most successful bias mitigation strategy for this setup. Finally, we demonstrated that explainable AI methods can aid in investigating the manifestation of bias in the model using this framework. DISCUSSION: The value of this framework is showcased in our findings on the impact of bias scenarios and efficacy of bias mitigation in a deep learning model pipeline. This systematic analysis can be easily expanded to conduct further controlled in silico trials in other investigations of bias in medical imaging AI. CONCLUSION: Our novel methodology for objectively studying bias in medical imaging AI can help support the development of clinical decision-support tools that are robust and responsible.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".