Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38486100›Full record

ArticleCommunications medicine2024

Preserving fairness and diagnostic accuracy in private large-scale AI models for medical imaging.

Soroosh Tayebi Arasteh, Alexander Ziller, Christiane Kuhl, Marcus Makowski, Sven Nebelung, Rickmer Braren, Daniel Rueckert, Daniel Truhn, Georgios Kaissis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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.

Soroosh Tayebi Arasteh *Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany. soroosh.arasteh@rwth-aachen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1015-7733
Alexander Ziller *Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. alex.ziller@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3242-0195
Christiane KuhlDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Marcus MakowskiInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8778-647X
Sven NebelungDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5267-9962
Rickmer BrarenInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6039-6957
Daniel RueckertArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5683-5889
Daniel TruhnDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany. dtruhn@ukaachen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9605-0728
Georgios KaissisInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. g.kaissis@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8382-8062

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Federal Ministry of Education and Research) 01KD2215BBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Federal Ministry of Education and Research) 01KX2021Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie (Federal Ministry for Education, Science, Research and Technology) 01ZZ2316CEC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020) 101057091
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID38486100
PMCPMC10940659

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.