Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39738436›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Assessing the documentation of publicly available medical image and signal datasets and their impact on bias using the BEAMRAD tool.

Maria Galanty, Dieuwertje Luitse, Sijm H Noteboom, Philip Croon, Alexander P Vlaar, Thomas Poell, Clara I Sanchez, Tobias Blanke, Ivana Išgum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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.

Maria GalantyInformatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.galanty@uva.nl.
Dieuwertje LuitseDepartment of Media Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sijm H NoteboomDepartment of Intensive Care, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philip CroonDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Alexander P VlaarDepartment of Intensive Care, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Thomas PoellDepartment of Media Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Clara I SanchezInformatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tobias BlankeDepartment of Media Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ivana IšgumInformatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Universiteit van Amsterdam Internal funding
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medical datasets are vital for advancing Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare. Yet biases in these datasets on which deep-learning models are trained can compromise reliability. This study investigates biases stemming from dataset-creation practices. Drawing on existing guidelines, we first developed a BEAMRAD tool to assess the documentation of public Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI); Color Fundus Photography (CFP), and Electrocardiogram (ECG) datasets. In doing so, we provide an overview of the biases that may emerge due to inadequate dataset documentation. Second, we examine the current state of documentation for public medical images and signal data. Our research reveals that there is substantial variance in the documentation of image and signal datasets, even though guidelines have been developed in medical imaging. This indicates that dataset documentation is subject to individual discretionary decisions. Furthermore, we find that aspects such as hardware and data acquisition details are commonly documented, while information regarding data annotation practices, annotation error quantification, or data limitations are not consistently reported. This risks having considerable implications for the abilities of data users to detect potential sources of bias through these respective aspects and develop reliable and robust models that can be adapted for clinical practice.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingArtificial IntelligenceBiasDatasets as TopicDeep LearningDiagnostic ImagingDocumentationElectrocardiographyHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID39738436
PMCPMC11686007

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.