ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Detection of Confounders and Potential Confounders in Computed Tomography Lung Datasets.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Machine learning models trained on computed tomography (CT) images are highly sensitive to variations in imaging acquisition parameters. Even subtle inconsistencies, often unnoticeable to human radiologists, can significantly degrade model accuracy. In clinical practice, datasets frequently exhibit heterogeneity due to variations in imaging protocols and scanner characteristics, which makes associated metadata a valuable but often underutilized resource for identifying sources of bias. To address this, we propose a novel unsupervised method that systematically identifies confounding and potentially confounding factors embedded in metadata. The key strengths of our method include automated detection of influential metadata attributes, minimal reliance on manual input, and the capability to proactively flag variables that could induce model drift post-deployment. Empirical evaluation in two distinct CT datasets demonstrates that controlling for factors identified by our method drastically improves model performance, increasing classification accuracy by 5 to 15% compared to datasets where these factors remain uncontrolled. These comparative results underscore the potential of our approach to substantially improve the robustness, consistency, and clinical applicability of radiomic machine learning models.
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.