ArticlePloS one2026
Towards reliable use of artificial intelligence to classify otitis media using otoscopic images: Addressing bias and improving data quality.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ear disease contributes significantly to global hearing loss, with recurrent otitis media being a primary preventable cause in children, impacting development. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers promise for early diagnosis via otoscopic image analysis, but dataset biases and inconsistencies limit model generalizability and reliability. This retrospective study systematically evaluated three public otoscopic image datasets (Chile; Ohio, USA; Türkiye) using quantitative and qualitative methods. Two counterfactual experiments were performed: (1) obscuring clinically relevant features to assess model reliance on non-clinical artifacts, and (2) evaluating the impact of hue, saturation, and value on diagnostic outcomes. Quantitative analysis revealed significant biases in the Chile and Ohio, USA datasets. Counterfactual Experiment I found high internal performance (AUC > 0.90) but poor external generalization, because of dataset-specific artifacts. The Türkiye dataset had fewer biases, with AUC decreasing from 0.86 to 0.65 as masking increased, suggesting higher reliance on clinically meaningful features. Counterfactual Experiment II identified common artifacts in the Chile and Ohio, USA datasets. A logistic regression model trained on clinically irrelevant features from the Chile dataset achieved high internal (AUC = 0.89) and external (Ohio, USA: AUC = 0.87) performance. Qualitative analysis identified redundancy in all the datasets and stylistic biases in the Ohio, USA dataset that correlated with clinical outcomes. In summary, dataset biases significantly compromise reliability and generalizability of AI-based otoscopic diagnostic models. Addressing these biases through standardized imaging protocols, diverse dataset inclusion, and improved labeling methods is crucial for developing robust AI solutions, improving high-quality healthcare access, and enhancing diagnostic accuracy.
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.