ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2025
Tailoring task arithmetic to address bias in models trained on multi-institutional datasets.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- AI-Driven Drug Discovery: Focus on Targets for Solid Tumors.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMulti-institutional datasets are widely used for machine learning from clinical data, to increase dataset size and improve generalization. However, deep learning models in particular may learn to recognize the source of a data element, leading to biased predictions. For example, deep learning models for image recognition trained on chest radiographs with COVID-19 positive and negative examples drawn from different data sources can respond to indicators of provenance (e.g., radiological annotations outside the lung area per institution-specific practices) rather than pathology, generalizing poorly beyond their training data. Bias of this sort, called confounding by provenance, is of concern in natural language processing (NLP) because provenance indicators (e.g., institution-specific section headers, or region-specific dialects) are pervasive in language data. Prior work on addressing such bias has focused on statistical methods, without providing a solution for deep learning models for NLP.
methodsRecent work in representation learning has shown that representing the weights of a trained deep network as task vectors allows for their arithmetic composition to govern model capabilities towards desired behaviors. In this work, we evaluate the extent to which reducing a model's ability to distinguish between contributing sites with such task arithmetic can mitigate confounding by provenance. To do so, we propose two model-agnostic methods, Task Arithmetic for Provenance Effect Reduction (TAPER) and Dominance-Aligned Polarized Provenance Effect Reduction (DAPPER), extending the task vectors approach to a novel problem domain.
resultsEvaluation on three datasets shows improved robustness to confounding by provenance for both RoBERTa and Llama-2 models with the task vector approach, with improved performance at the extremes of distribution shift.
conclusionThis work emphasizes the importance of adjusting for confounding by provenance, especially in extreme cases of the shift. In use of deep learning models, DAPPER and TAPER show efficiency in mitigating such bias. They provide a novel mitigation strategy for confounding by provenance, with broad applicability to address other sources of bias in composite clinical data sets. Source code is available within the DeconDTN toolkit: https://github.com/LinguisticAnomalies/DeconDTN-toolkit.
Indexed as
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.