Sex differences in brain MRI using deep learning toward fairer healthcare outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study leverages deep learning to analyze sex differences in brain MRI data, aiming to further advance fairness in medical imaging. We employed 3D T1-weighted Magnetic Resonance images from four diverse datasets: Calgary-Campinas-359, OASIS-3, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, and Cambridge Center for Aging and Neuroscience, ensuring a balanced representation of sexes and a broad demographic scope. Our methodology focused on minimal preprocessing to preserve the integrity of brain structures, utilizing a Convolutional Neural Network model for sex classification. The model achieved an accuracy of 87% on the test set without employing total intracranial volume (TIV) adjustment techniques. We observed that while the model exhibited biases at extreme brain sizes, it performed with less bias when the TIV distributions overlapped more. Saliency maps were used to identify brain regions significant in sex differentiation, revealing that certain supratentorial and infratentorial regions were important for predictions. Furthermore, our interdisciplinary team, comprising machine learning specialists and a radiologist, ensured diverse perspectives in validating the results. The detailed investigation of sex differences in brain MRI in this study, highlighted by the sex differences map, offers valuable insights into sex-specific aspects of medical imaging and could aid in developing sex-based bias mitigation strategies, contributing to the future development of fair AI algorithms. Awareness of the brain's differences between sexes enables more equitable AI predictions, promoting fairness in healthcare outcomes. Our code and saliency maps are available at https://github.com/mahsadibaji/sex-differences-brain-dl.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".