Investigation on potential bias factors in histopathology datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep neural networks (DNNs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in medical applications, including digital pathology, where they excel at analyzing complex patterns in medical images to assist in accurate disease diagnosis and prognosis. However, concerns have arisen about potential biases in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset, a comprehensive repository of digitized histopathology data and serves as both a training and validation source for deep learning models, suggesting that over-optimistic results of model performance may be due to reliance on biased features rather than histological characteristics. Surprisingly, recent studies have confirmed the existence of site-specific bias in the embedded features extracted for cancer-type discrimination, leading to high accuracy in acquisition site classification. This biased behavior motivated us to conduct an in-depth analysis to investigate potential causes behind this unexpected biased ability toward site-specific pattern recognition. The analysis was conducted on two cutting-edge DNN models: KimiaNet, a state-of-the-art DNN trained on TCGA images, and the self-trained EfficientNet. In this research study, the balanced accuracy metric is used to evaluate the performance of a model trained to classify data centers, which was originally designed to learn cancerous patterns, with the aim of investigating the potential factors contributing to the higher balanced accuracy in data center detection.
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 | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".