Interpretability of AI race detection model in medical imaging with saliency methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep neural networks (DNNs) are powerful tools for classifying images. Using these convolutional models for medical images is challenging due to their complexity and large number of parameters, making it hard to find clinically meaningful explanations for their decisions. To overcome the opaqueness inherent to such models, saliency techniques suggest generating maps that highlight the regions of an image important for the DNN's prediction. DNN models have shown the capability of race detection from medical images of different modalities, which is concerning as they under-diagnose patients from historically under-served races. The objective of this paper is to use explainability methods to detect subtle bias that DNNs use to detect a patient's race from chest X-rays. Toward this end, we apply eight state-of-the-art methods and propose to evaluate their effectiveness. We demonstrate that the salient region's size is crucial to understanding network behavior. When the salient region covers 30% of the image, we find that only the Rise method is effective at locating salient areas, as it can both accurately predict a patient's race on chest X-ray images on its own and mislead the network on race detection when removed. We, therefore, note that saliency maps in the medical field should be used with caution, as there is no available ground truth, and the network may occasionally employ low-level image features to compute predictions.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it