Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37198691›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic pathology2023

Biased data, biased AI: deep networks predict the acquisition site of TCGA images.

Taher Dehkharghanian, Azam Asilian Bidgoli, Abtin Riasatian, Pooria Mazaheri, Clinton J V Campbell, Liron Pantanowitz, H R Tizhoosh, Shahryar Rahnamayan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Mitigating Batch Effects in Histopathology via Language-Mediated Robust Embedding Generation.Proceedings. IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. HISTAI: a valuable dataset with a valuable lesson.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Taher DehkharghanianUniversity Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Azam Asilian BidgoliNature Inspired Computational Intelligence (NICI), Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada.
Abtin RiasatianKIMIA Lab, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Pooria MazaheriNature Inspired Computational Intelligence (NICI), Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada.
Clinton J V CampbellDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Health Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Liron PantanowitzDepartment of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
H R TizhooshKIMIA Lab, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Shahryar RahnamayanNature Inspired Computational Intelligence (NICI), Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada. srahnamayan@brocku.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

NeoplasmsColoring AgentsEosine Yellowish-(YS)HematoxylinHumansNeural Networks, ComputerColoring AgentsEosine Yellowish-(YS)HematoxylinAI biasAI ethicsCancerDeep LearningDigital pathologyTCGA

Identifiers

PMID37198691
PMCPMC10189924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.