MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116749688 · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-02226-5

Distinct visual biases affect humans and artificial intelligence in medical imaging diagnoses

2025· article· en· W7116749688 on OpenAlexaff
Graham A. McLeod, Emma A. M. Stanley, Tom Rosenal, Nils D. Forkert

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Digital Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical diagnosisMedical imagingPerspective (graphical)Affect (linguistics)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can detect subtle features in diagnostic imaging scans that radiologists may miss, including higher-order features that lack obvious visual correlates. This may enable earlier disease detection and non-invasive lesion phenotyping, but also introduces risks due to AI's reliance on correlations rather than causation, potential demographic and technical biases, and uninterpretable reasoning. This perspective explores how radiologists and AI learn to perceive details in medical images differently, leading to potential discrepancies in medical decision-making.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.359 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Digital MedicineSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207