From Detection to Mitigation: Addressing Bias in Deep Learning Models for Chest X-Ray Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning models have shown promise in improving diagnostic accuracy from chest X-rays, but they also risk perpetuating healthcare disparities when performance varies across demographic groups. In this work, we present a comprehensive bias detection and mitigation framework targeting sex, age, and race-based disparities when performing diagnostic tasks with chest X-rays. We extend a recent CNN-XGBoost pipeline to support multi-label classification and evaluate its performance across four medical conditions. We show that replacing the final layer of CNN with an eXtreme Gradient Boosting classifier improves the fairness of the subgroup while maintaining or improving the overall predictive performance. To validate its generalizability, we apply the method to different backbones, namely DenseNet-121 and ResNet-50, and achieve similarly strong performance and fairness outcomes, confirming its model-agnostic design. We further compare this lightweight adapter training method with traditional full-model training bias mitigation techniques, including adversarial training, reweighting, data augmentation, and active learning, and find that our approach offers competitive or superior bias reduction at a fraction of the computational cost. Finally, we show that combining eXtreme Gradient Boosting retraining with active learning yields the largest reduction in bias across all demographic subgroups, both in and out of distribution on the CheXpert and MIMIC datasets, establishing a practical and effective path toward equitable deep learning deployment in clinical radiology.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".