Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37506964›Full record

ReviewJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2023

"Shortcuts" Causing Bias in Radiology Artificial Intelligence: Causes, Evaluation, and Mitigation.

Imon Banerjee, Kamanasish Bhattacharjee, John L Burns, Hari Trivedi, Saptarshi Purkayastha, Laleh Seyyed-Kalantari, Bhavik N Patel, Rakesh Shiradkar, Judy Gichoya

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07558746 (AI Reliance in Diagnostic Radiology Among Intern Doctors in Palestine), which is not on this map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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.

NCT07558746 naenrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

AI Reliance in Diagnostic Radiology Among Intern Doctors in Palestine: A Triple-Arm, Triple-Blind, Parallel-Design Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAl-Quds UniversityRan2026 to 2026Enrolled159ConditionsRadiology, Internship and Residency, AI (Artificial Intelligence)ArmsAI prompt (Correct), AI prompt (Incorrect)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Mask of Truth: Model Sensitivity to Unexpected Regions of Medical Images.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Imon BanerjeeDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona; School of Computing and Augmented Intelligence, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
Kamanasish BhattacharjeeMayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona.
John L BurnsDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Hari TrivediDepartment of Radiology, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Saptarshi PurkayasthaDepartment of BioHealth Informatics, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Laleh Seyyed-KalantariDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Bhavik N PatelDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona; School of Computing and Augmented Intelligence, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
Rakesh ShiradkarDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
Judy GichoyaDepartment of Radiology, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: judywawira@emory.edu.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USEmory University · USGeorgia Institute of Technology · USIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · USIndiana University School of MedicineYork University · CA

Funding

RADX TECH - CERES NANOSCIENCE INC NANOTRAP PARTICLE MANUFACTURING75N92020C00021 · NHLBI · CERES NANOSCIENCES, LLLP · PI DUNLAP, ROSS · 2021 to 2021
$4.0M
MR Fingerprinting and Computerized Decision Support for Prostate CancerR01CA208236 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI GULANI, VIKAS, PONSKY, LEE EVAN · 2017 to 2022
$3.0M
Population-level Pulmonary Embolism Outcome Prediction with Imaging and Clinical Data: A Multi-Center StudyR01HL155410 · NHLBI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI LANGLOTZ, CURTIS P, SHAH, NIGAM H · 2021 to 2024
$2.1M
Virtual Reality to Improve Social Perspective Taking in Youth with Disruptive Behavior DisordersR61MH119291 · NIMH · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI HUMMER, THOMAS A · 2019 to 2020
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA208236NHLBI NIH HHS 75N92020C00008NHLBI NIH HHS 75N92020C00021NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL155410NIMH NIH HHS R61 MH119291
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the expert-level performance of artificial intelligence (AI) models for various medical imaging tasks, real-world performance failures with disparate outputs for various subgroups limit the usefulness of AI in improving patients' lives. Many definitions of fairness have been proposed, with discussions of various tensions that arise in the choice of an appropriate metric to use to evaluate bias; for example, should one aim for individual or group fairness? One central observation is that AI models apply "shortcut learning" whereby spurious features (such as chest tubes and portable radiographic markers on intensive care unit chest radiography) on medical images are used for prediction instead of identifying true pathology. Moreover, AI has been shown to have a remarkable ability to detect protected attributes of age, sex, and race, while the same models demonstrate bias against historically underserved subgroups of age, sex, and race in disease diagnosis. Therefore, an AI model may take shortcut predictions from these correlations and subsequently generate an outcome that is biased toward certain subgroups even when protected attributes are not explicitly used as inputs into the model. As a result, these subgroups became nonprivileged subgroups. In this review, the authors discuss the various types of bias from shortcut learning that may occur at different phases of AI model development, including data bias, modeling bias, and inference bias. The authors thereafter summarize various tool kits that can be used to evaluate and mitigate bias and note that these have largely been applied to nonmedical domains and require more evaluation for medical AI. The authors then summarize current techniques for mitigating bias from preprocessing (data-centric solutions) and during model development (computational solutions) and postprocessing (recalibration of learning). Ongoing legal changes where the use of a biased model will be penalized highlight the necessity of understanding, detecting, and mitigating biases from shortcut learning and will require diverse research teams looking at the whole AI pipeline.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceRadiologyBiasCausalityHumansRadiographyArtificial Intelligencemachine learning

Identifiers

PMID37506964
PMCPMC11192466
OpenAlexW4385365799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.