MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410542464 · doi:10.1148/radiol.241674

Pitfalls and Best Practices in Evaluation of AI Algorithmic Biases in Radiology

2025· review· en· W4410542464 on OpenAlexaff
Paul H. Yi, Preetham Bachina, Beepul Bharti, Sean P. Garin, Adway Kanhere, Pranav Kulkarni, David Li, Vishwa S. Parekh, Samantha M. Santomartino, Linda Moy, Jeremias Sulam

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINEMedical physicsData scienceArtificial intelligenceRadiologyMachine learningComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

statistical evaluations of bias. Although AI bias in radiology has been broadly reviewed in the recent literature, this article focuses specifically on underrecognized potential pitfalls related to the three key areas. By providing awareness of these pitfalls along with actionable practices to avoid them, exciting AI technologies can be used in radiology for the good of all people.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.565
GPT teacher head0.603
Teacher spread0.038 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207