ArticleScientific reports2022
Physical imaging parameter variation drives domain shift.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mitigating Domain Shift and Dataset Bias in Deep Learning Models for Cancer Diagnostics.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Review
- AI performance varies considerably across mammography devices: a multi-site and multi-vendor retrospective study.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Multi-class anatomical landmark detection in periapical radiographs with deep learning.Odontology · 2026Article
- The impact of scanner domain shift on deep learning performance in medical imaging: an experimental study.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- An Evaluation of the Mean Teacher Framework for Semi-Supervised Cataract Surgical Image Segmentation.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- AID-RT: Standardising Artificial Intelligence Documentation in RadioTherapy with a domain-specific model card.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Will AI Replace Physicians in the Near Future? AI Adoption Barriers in Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- FA-DeepMSM: a few-shot adapted interpretable multimodal survival model for improved prognostic prediction in glioblastoma.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Generative artificial intelligence in lung cancer care: current applications, challenges, and future directions.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Characterizing the effects of noncontrast head CT reconstruction kernel and slice thickness parameters on the performance of an automated AI algorithm in the evaluation of ischemic stroke.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2026Article
- Article
- Model-based self-supervised learning for quantitative assessment of myocardial oxygen extraction fraction and myocardial blood volume.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- Advancing standards in biomedical image analysis validation: A perspective on Metrics Reloaded.Clinical and translational medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Towards generalizable Federated Learning in medical imaging: A real-world case study on mammography data.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Feasibility and time gain of implementing artificial intelligence-based delineation tools in daily magnetic resonance image-guided adaptive prostate cancer radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Beyond Multiple-Choice Accuracy: Real-World Challenges of Implementing Large Language Models in Healthcare.ArXiv · 2024Article
- Annotated dataset for deep-learning-based bacterial colony detection.Scientific data · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statistical learning algorithms strongly rely on an oversimplified assumption for optimal performance, that is, source (training) and target (testing) data are independent and identically distributed. Variation in human tissue, physician labeling and physical imaging parameters (PIPs) in the generative process, yield medical image datasets with statistics that render this central assumption false. When deploying models, new examples are often out of distribution with respect to training data, thus, training robust dependable and predictive models is still a challenge in medical imaging with significant accuracy drops common for deployed models. This statistical variation between training and testing data is referred to as domain shift (DS).To the best of our knowledge we provide the first empirical evidence that variation in PIPs between test and train medical image datasets is a significant driver of DS and model generalization error is correlated with this variance. We show significant covariate shift occurs due to a selection bias in sampling from a small area of PIP space for both inter and intra-hospital regimes. In order to show this, we control for population shift, prevalence shift, data selection biases and annotation biases to investigate the sole effect of the physical generation process on model generalization for a proxy task of age group estimation on a combined 44 k image mammogram dataset collected from five hospitals.We hypothesize that training data should be sampled evenly from PIP space to produce the most robust models and hope this study provides motivation to retain medical image generation metadata that is almost always discarded or redacted in open source datasets. This metadata measured with standard international units can provide a universal regularizing anchor between distributions generated across the world for all current and future imaging modalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.