ArticleCommunications medicine2024
Preserving fairness and diagnostic accuracy in private large-scale AI models for medical imaging.
Article in Communications medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Responsible artificial intelligence in medical imaging: a systematic review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- Resolution-dependent self-supervised transfer in chest radiograph classification.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Automated Diagnosis of Infantile Skull Fractures From X-Ray Images Using an Ensemble Deep Learning Model.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Research progress and challenges of multimodal deep learning models for prognosis of gastric cancer.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- APOLLO11: a bio-data-driven model for clinical and translational research in lung cancer.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Differential privacy for medical deep learning: methods, tradeoffs, and deployment implications.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Acceptance of generative AI-assisted medical decision-making among Chinese physicians and patients and its ethical determinants: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Diagnostic methods for pancreatic cancer and their clinical applications (Review).Oncology letters · 2025Review
- Advancements in Machine Learning for Precision Diagnostics and Surgical Interventions in Interconnected Musculoskeletal and Visual Systems.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Achieving flexible fairness metrics in federated medical imaging.Nature communications · 2025Article
- The promise and limitations of artificial intelligence in CTPA-based pulmonary embolism detection.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Privacy enhancing and generalizable deep learning with synthetic data for mediastinal neoplasm diagnosis.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Addressing challenges in speaker anonymization to maintain utility while ensuring privacy of pathological speech.Communications medicine · 2024Article
- Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC): A Review of Recent Advancements Enabled by Artificial Intelligence.Cancers · 2024Review
- Encrypted federated learning for secure decentralized collaboration in cancer image analysis.Medical image analysis · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) models are increasingly used in the medical domain. However, as medical data is highly sensitive, special precautions to ensure its protection are required. The gold standard for privacy preservation is the introduction of differential privacy (DP) to model training. Prior work indicates that DP has negative implications on model accuracy and fairness, which are unacceptable in medicine and represent a main barrier to the widespread use of privacy-preserving techniques. In this work, we evaluated the effect of privacy-preserving training of AI models regarding accuracy and fairness compared to non-private training.
methodsWe used two datasets: (1) A large dataset (N = 193,311) of high quality clinical chest radiographs, and (2) a dataset (N = 1625) of 3D abdominal computed tomography (CT) images, with the task of classifying the presence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Both were retrospectively collected and manually labeled by experienced radiologists. We then compared non-private deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and privacy-preserving (DP) models with respect to privacy-utility trade-offs measured as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and privacy-fairness trade-offs, measured as Pearson's r or Statistical Parity Difference.
resultsWe find that, while the privacy-preserving training yields lower accuracy, it largely does not amplify discrimination against age, sex or co-morbidity. However, we find an indication that difficult diagnoses and subgroups suffer stronger performance hits in private training.
conclusionsOur study shows that - under the challenging realistic circumstances of a real-life clinical dataset - the privacy-preserving training of diagnostic deep learning models is possible with excellent diagnostic accuracy and fairness.
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.