ArticleComputers in biology and medicine2025
Quantitative assessment of impact of technical and population-based factors on fairness of AI models for chest X-ray scans.
Article in Computers in biology and medicine, 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.
- Foundation models for X-ray interpretation: a narrative review of current techniques and future perspectives in diagnostic imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ensuring fairness in diagnostic AI models is essential for their safe deployment in clinical practice. This study investigates fairness by jointly analyzing population-based factors (sex and race) and technical factors (imaging site and X-ray energy) using chest X-ray data. A total of 49 datasets covering over 321,000 patients and 960,000 images were used. Six experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of these factors on model performance across classification scores, class activation maps (CAMs), and deep features (DFs). Fairness was assessed using effect sizes derived from Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics. Within single datasets, performance differences between demographic groups were generally small, with effect sizes below 0.1 for classification scores and CAMs, and up to 0.2 for deep features by sex. However, much larger discrepancies were observed when comparing the same patient group across different imaging sites, with effect sizes ranging from 0.1 to 0.6 across all metrics. Our findings suggest that technical variability has a greater impact on model behavior than population-based factors. Notably, deep features revealed more substantial group differences than surface-level outputs like diagnostic probability scores or CAMs. The findings emphasize the need to evaluate fairness not only within datasets but also across institutions, comparing model performance on training versus external populations, thereby helping to identify fairness limitations that might not be visible through single-cohort analyses.
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.