ArticleDiagnostic pathology2023
Biased data, biased AI: deep networks predict the acquisition site of TCGA images.
Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 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
33 citing papers in PubMed.
- Whole-slide imaging in hematopathology: Current state, challenges and future opportunities.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Review
- Counterfactual Diffusion Models Provide Interpretable Explanations of Artificial Intelligence Models in Pathology.Cancer research · 2026Article
- The Missing Millions: Building Cancer Pathology Artificial Intelligence for Safety Net Populations.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Review
- Deceptive bias measurement in deep learning: Assessing shortcut reliance in TCGA cancer models.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Bridging traditional and deep learning methods in H&E histological image normalization: a comprehensive review and introducing a novel framework for comparative analyses.Journal of advanced research · 2026Review
- Mitigating Batch Effects in Histopathology via Language-Mediated Robust Embedding Generation.Proceedings. IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · 2026Article
- Estimating tumour immune infiltration: methodological convergence across histology and spatial technologies.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- HISTAI: a valuable dataset with a valuable lesson.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2026Article
- A new era of precision diagnosis and treatment for lung cancer: artificial intelligence-driven multimodal data integration and clinical applications.Cell death & disease · 2026Review
- Biological feature-based machine learning in histopathological images: a systematic review.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Review
- AI in Cancer Prognosis: A Systematic Review of Multimodal Models Combining Pathology Images and High-Throughput Omics.Cancer informatics · 2026Article
- Article
- Foundation models in computational pathology: methods, applications and clinical implications.BMJ oncology · 2026Review
- Unbiased Artificial Intelligence: Addressing Bias in Computational Pathology.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Review
- Digital Pathology and Artificial Intelligence Applied to Nonclinical Toxicology Pathology-The Current State, Challenges, and Future Directions.Toxicologic pathology · 2025Review
- Counterfactual Diffusion Models for Interpretable Morphology-based Explanations of Artificial Intelligence Models in Pathology.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Deep learning in histopathology images for prediction of oncogenic driver molecular alterations in lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Article
- Investigation on potential bias factors in histopathology datasets.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bias recognition and mitigation strategies in artificial intelligence healthcare applications.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence-driven analysis of antibody and nucleic acid biomarkers for enhanced disease diagnostics.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeep learning models applied to healthcare applications including digital pathology have been increasing their scope and importance in recent years. Many of these models have been trained on The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) atlas of digital images, or use it as a validation source. One crucial factor that seems to have been widely ignored is the internal bias that originates from the institutions that contributed WSIs to the TCGA dataset, and its effects on models trained on this dataset.
methods8,579 paraffin-embedded, hematoxylin and eosin stained, digital slides were selected from the TCGA dataset. More than 140 medical institutions (acquisition sites) contributed to this dataset. Two deep neural networks (DenseNet121 and KimiaNet were used to extract deep features at 20× magnification. DenseNet was pre-trained on non-medical objects. KimiaNet has the same structure but trained for cancer type classification on TCGA images. The extracted deep features were later used to detect each slide's acquisition site, and also for slide representation in image search.
resultsDenseNet's deep features could distinguish acquisition sites with 70% accuracy whereas KimiaNet's deep features could reveal acquisition sites with more than 86% accuracy. These findings suggest that there are acquisition site specific patterns that could be picked up by deep neural networks. It has also been shown that these medically irrelevant patterns can interfere with other applications of deep learning in digital pathology, namely image search. This study shows that there are acquisition site specific patterns that can be used to identify tissue acquisition sites without any explicit training. Furthermore, it was observed that a model trained for cancer subtype classification has exploited such medically irrelevant patterns to classify cancer types. Digital scanner configuration and noise, tissue stain variation and artifacts, and source site patient demographics are among factors that likely account for the observed bias. Therefore, researchers should be cautious of such bias when using histopathology datasets for developing and training deep networks.
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.