MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413104980 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2025.3597527

Adversarial Debiasing for Equitable and Fair Detection of Acute Coronary Syndrome Using 12-Lead ECG

2025· article· en· W4413104980 on OpenAlexaff
Rui Qi Ji, Nathan T. Riek, Zeineb Bouzid, Karina Kraevsky-Phillips, Tanmay Gokhale, Jessica K. Zègre‐Hemsey, Gilles Clermont, Samir Saba, Christian Martin‐Gill, Clifton W. Callaway, Murat Akçakaya, Ervin Sejdić, Salah S. Al‐Zaiti

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNorth York General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDebiasingAdversarial systemAcute coronary syndromeElectrocardiographyLead (geology)CardiologyComputer scienceInternal medicineMedicineArtificial intelligencePsychologyMyocardial infarctionGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a life-threatening condition requiring accurate diagnosis for better outcomes. However, variability in signs and symptoms among racial subgroups could cause disparities in diagnostic accuracy. In this study, we use machine learning models to diagnose ACS, focusing on mitigating disparities and ensuring fairness between Black and non-Black populations. METHODS: We built on a state-of-the-art random forest classifier to compare three mitigation strategies. The first two approaches involved resampling or partitioning the data prior to training, while the third approach proposed an innovative framework called adversarial debiasing. To evaluate our model performance, we used the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and an operating point at 80% specificity for clinical importance. RESULTS: After mitigation with adversarial debiasing, the difference in sensitivities between the two subgroups decreased from 9.8% to 1.3%. Specifically, this approach achieved areas under the ROC of 0.810 and 0.817, and sensitivities of 70.1% and 71.4%, respectively for Black and non-Black subgroups. CONCLUSION: The proposed adversarial debiasing model outperformed the other two methods in both diagnostic accuracy and effectiveness in minimizing disparities. SIGNIFICANCE: We expect this framework to achieve fair diagnostic models across diverse demographic populations globally and be generalizable to other outcomes.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207