ArticleScientific reports2025
An investigation of race bias in deep learning-based segmentation of prostate MRI images.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving racial fairness in brain age models using style-transfer synthesis.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- From intelligent models to clinical tools: the evolving landscape of AI in medical imaging.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) has been proposed for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prostate segmentation for various clinical tasks, including radiotherapy treatment planning. In other applications, DL models have exhibited performance bias by protected attributes such as race. To investigate possible race bias in prostate MRI segmentation, DL models were trained on five clinical T2-weighted MRI datasets with varying White/Black race imbalance, plus one public dataset with unknown races, and evaluated on 32 White/Black matched clinical subjects. For the models trained with differing levels of race imbalance, the best performance for both races was when the training set was race-balanced. A linear mixed-effects model analysis showed that Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) differences between Black and White subjects depended on race representation in the training data, with a slight reduction in White-Black performance gap as Black representation increased (p < 0.05). The model trained on public data showed no difference in performance between races for DSC. The findings reveal the potential for race bias in DL prostate MRI segmentation performance when training sets are highly imbalanced. We argue for transparency in race reporting in DL prostate segmentation training data and reporting of test performance across demographic groups, with appropriate ethical/legal safeguards.
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.