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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.154
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.345
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1540.345
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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