Investigating Demographic Bias in Brain MRI Segmentation: A Comparative Study of Deep-Learning and Non-Deep-Learning Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep-learning-based segmentation algorithms have substantially advanced the field of medical image analysis, particularly in structural delineations in MRIs. However, an important consideration is the intrinsic bias in the data. Concerns about unfairness, such as performance disparities based on sensitive attributes like race and sex, are increasingly urgent. In this work, we evaluate the results of four different segmentation models (UNesT, nnU‐Net, and CoTr) and a traditional atlas-based method (ANTs), applied to segment the left and right nucleus accumbens (NAc) in MRI images. We utilize a dataset including four demographic subgroups: black female, black male, white female, and white male. We employ manually labeled gold-standard segmentations to train and test segmentation models. This study consists of two parts: the first assesses the segmentation performance of models, while the second measures the volumes they produce to evaluate the effects of race, sex, and their interaction. Fairness is quantitatively measured using a metric designed to quantify fairness in segmentation performance. Additionally, linear mixed models analyze the impact of demographic variables on segmentation accuracy and derived volumes. Training on the same race as the test subjects leads to significantly better segmentation accuracy for some models. ANTs and UNesT show notable improvements in segmentation accuracy when trained and tested on race-matched data, unlike nnU-Net, which demonstrates robust performance independent of demographic matching. Finally, we examine sex and race effects on the volume of the NAc using segmentation from the manual rater and from our biased models. Results reveal that the sex effects observed with manual segmentation can also be observed with biased models, whereas the race effects disappear in all but one model. Our findings underscore the importance of diverse and balanced datasets for equitable brain MRI segmentation and highlight the need for systematic bias analysis in developing medical imaging models.
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 | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".