Understanding Biases and Disparities in Radiology AI Datasets: A Review
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) continues to show great potential in disease detection and diagnosis on medical imaging with increasingly high accuracy. An important component of AI model creation is dataset development for training, validation, and testing. Diverse and high-quality datasets are critical to ensure robust and unbiased AI models that maintain validity, especially in traditionally underserved populations globally. Yet publicly available datasets demonstrate problems with quality and inclusivity. In this literature review, the authors evaluate publicly available medical imaging datasets for demographic, geographic, genetic, and disease representation or lack thereof and call for an increase emphasis on dataset development to maximize the impact of AI models.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Currently, publicly available datasets are limited to a narrow spectrum of diseases or countries of origin of the patient population.
“Currently, these publicly available datasets are limited to a narrow spectrum of diseases or countries of origin of the patient population.123”
From Bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging: fundamentals, detection, avoidance, mitigation, challenges, ethics, and prospects (2024) · cites this paper as [123]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 75
- Authors
- Tripathi, S., Gabriel, K., Dheer, S., Parajuli, A., Augustin, A. I., Elahi, A., Awan, O., & Dako, F.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Kathmandu University (NP)
- Drexel University (US)
- University of Pennsylvania Health System (US)
- University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tripathi, Satvik
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of the American College of Radiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-09
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 836-841
- ISSN
- 1546-1440 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4384461149
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 2 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the American College of Radiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- RSNA Research and Education Foundation
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in radiology, medical imaging datasets, data bias, health disparities, demographic representation, geographical representation, genetic representation, illness representations, underserved populations, dataset quality
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Radiography, Radiology, Bias
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review