Reconstruction of patient-specific confounders in AI-based radiologic image interpretation using generative pretraining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliably detecting potentially misleading patterns in automated diagnostic assistance systems, such as those powered by artificial intelligence (AI), is crucial for instilling user trust and ensuring reliability. Current techniques fall short in visualizing such confounding factors. We propose DiffChest, a self-conditioned diffusion model trained on 515,704 chest radiographs from 194,956 patients across the US and Europe. DiffChest provides patient-specific explanations and visualizes confounding factors that might mislead the model. The high inter-reader agreement, with Fleiss' kappa values of 0.8 or higher, validates its capability to identify treatment-related confounders. Confounders are accurately detected with 10%-100% prevalence rates. The pretraining process optimizes the model for relevant imaging information, resulting in excellent diagnostic accuracy for 11 chest conditions, including pleural effusion and heart insufficiency. Our findings highlight the potential of diffusion models in medical image classification, providing insights into confounding factors and enhancing model robustness and reliability.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".