ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Deceptive bias measurement in deep learning: Assessing shortcut reliance in TCGA cancer models.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning bias is a persistent challenge because it can create unfair outcomes, limit generalization, and reduce trust in real-world applications. A key source of this problem is shortcut learning, where models exploit signals linked to sensitive attributes, such as the data source or collection site, instead of relying on task-relevant features. To address this, we propose the Deceptive Signal metric, a novel quantitative measure designed to assess the extent of a model's reliance on hidden shortcuts during the learning process. This metric is derived via the Deceptive Bias Detection pipeline, which isolates shortcut dependence by contrasting the model's behavior under two controlled conditions: (1) Full Exclusion, where a sensitive subgroup is completely removed from training; and (2) Partial Exclusion, where the model has limited access to specific classes within that subgroup. By calculating the behavioral shift between these settings, the Deceptive Signal metric provides a quantitative estimate of the model's susceptibility to learning task-irrelevant patterns. In experiments with the TCGA histopathology dataset, our metric successfully quantified substantial dependencies on center-specific artifacts in models trained for cancer classification.
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.