ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2026
Mitigating Algorithmic Bias in Cancer Site Classification Models.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2026. 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.
- Machine learning-based multicenter prediction of postoperative sepsis in emergency colon cancer: role of surgical approach and inflammatory markers.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- The Rise of Generalist Foundation Models and Quantum Computing in Oncology.Technology in cancer research & treatmentReview
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
purposeIntegrating artificial intelligence in cancer diagnostics has improved tumor classification beyond rule-based systems. Despite these advancements, these models may still encode demographic biases. We conducted a large-scale, applied bias-probing study of a deep learning-based cancer site classifier to quantify race information encoded in document embeddings. We then evaluated how performance changes when race-correlated embedding dimensions are removed in a post-training sensitivity analysis.
methodsThe cancer site classifier was trained using 3.5 million electronic cancer pathology reports from six of the National Cancer Institute's SEER registries. We trained a hierarchical self-attention network to generate 400-dimensional document embeddings. These embeddings were used to train two downstream, gradient-boosted decision tree classifiers: one to classify the cancer sites and another to predict racial categories. We identified overlapping features by intersecting the top 50 feature-importance rankings from the site and race models and computed their cumulative feature importance in each model. As a post hoc sensitivity analysis, we progressively pruned these overlapping dimensions, retrained the site model, and compared overall macro-F1 and accuracy, race-stratified macro-F1, and group fairness metrics on the basis of demographic parity and equalized odds before and after pruning.
resultsThe analysis revealed minimal feature overlap between the cancer site and race prediction models, and the cumulative importance scores indicated a negligible influence of racial information on clinical predictions. Post-training pruning of overlapping features did not compromise the models' diagnostic accuracy, with a 0.07% loss in accuracy.
conclusionOur findings demonstrate that HiSAN-generated embeddings from SEER data can be used effectively in cancer site classification without significant demographic bias influencing the outcomes. Post-training pruning therefore functions as a practical audit and sensitivity check.
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.