Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38942737›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024

Towards objective and systematic evaluation of bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging.

Emma A M Stanley, Raissa Souza, Anthony J Winder, Vedant Gulve, Kimberly Amador, Matthias Wilms, Nils D Forkert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors.

Emma A M StanleyBiomedical Engineering Graduate Program, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7802-6820
Raissa SouzaBiomedical Engineering Graduate Program, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7455-3383
Anthony J WinderDepartment of Radiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada.
Vedant GulveDepartment of Radiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada.
Kimberly AmadorBiomedical Engineering Graduate Program, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Matthias WilmsHotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada.
Nils D ForkertDepartment of Radiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2556-3224

Funding

Alberta Children's Hospital FoundationAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, River Fund at Calgary FoundationCanada Research Chairs ProgramNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaRiver Fund at Calgary Foundation, Canada Research Chairs ProgramUniversity of Calgary Department of Pediatrics
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveArtificial intelligence (AI) models trained using medical images for clinical tasks often exhibit bias in the form of subgroup performance disparities. However, since not all sources of bias in real-world medical imaging data are easily identifiable, it is challenging to comprehensively assess their impacts. In this article, we introduce an analysis framework for systematically and objectively investigating the impact of biases in medical images on AI models. MATERIALS AND

methodsOur framework utilizes synthetic neuroimages with known disease effects and sources of bias. We evaluated the impact of bias effects and the efficacy of 3 bias mitigation strategies in counterfactual data scenarios on a convolutional neural network (CNN) classifier.

resultsThe analysis revealed that training a CNN model on the datasets containing bias effects resulted in expected subgroup performance disparities. Moreover, reweighing was the most successful bias mitigation strategy for this setup. Finally, we demonstrated that explainable AI methods can aid in investigating the manifestation of bias in the model using this framework. DISCUSSION: The value of this framework is showcased in our findings on the impact of bias scenarios and efficacy of bias mitigation in a deep learning model pipeline. This systematic analysis can be easily expanded to conduct further controlled in silico trials in other investigations of bias in medical imaging AI.

conclusionOur novel methodology for objectively studying bias in medical imaging AI can help support the development of clinical decision-support tools that are robust and responsible.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiasNeural Networks, ComputerDiagnostic ImagingHumansNeuroimagingalgorithmic biasartificial intelligencebias mitigationsynthetic data

Identifiers

PMID38942737
PMCPMC11491635

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.