Cited by 54Ethics and Social Impacts of AISurgical Simulation and TrainingArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Human visual explanations mitigate bias in AI-based assessment of surgeon skills

Open access
Kiyasseh, Dani, Laca, Jasper, Haque, Taseen F., Otiato, Maxwell, Miles, Brian J., Wagner, Christian, Donoho, Daniel A., Trinh, Quoc-Dien +2 more·2023·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can now reliably assess surgeon skills through videos of intraoperative surgical activity. With such systems informing future high-stakes decisions such as whether to credential surgeons and grant them the privilege to operate on patients, it is critical that they treat all surgeons fairly. However, it remains an open question whether surgical AI systems exhibit bias against surgeon sub-cohorts, and, if so, whether such bias can be mitigated. Here, we examine and mitigate the bias exhibited by a family of surgical AI systems-SAIS-deployed on videos of robotic surgeries from three geographically-diverse hospitals (USA and EU). We show that SAIS exhibits an underskilling bias, erroneously downgrading surgical performance, and an overskilling bias, erroneously upgrading surgical performance, at different rates across surgeon sub-cohorts. To mitigate such bias, we leverage a strategy -TWIX-which teaches an AI system to provide a visual explanation for its skill assessment that otherwise would have been provided by human experts. We show that whereas baseline strategies inconsistently mitigate algorithmic bias, TWIX can effectively mitigate the underskilling and overskilling bias while simultaneously improving the performance of these AI systems across hospitals. We discovered that these findings carry over to the training environment where we assess medical students' skills today. Our study is a critical prerequisite to the eventual implementation of AI-augmented global surgeon credentialing programs, ensuring that all surgeons are treated fairly.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41746-023-00766-2

Cites

53 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [20]Domnich, A. & Anbarjafari, G. Responsible ai: Gender bias assessment in emotion recognition. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.11436 (2021). · arXiv
  2. [24]Marcinkevičs, R., Ozkan, E. & Vogt, J. E. Debiasing deep chest x-ray classifiers using intra-and post-processing methods. Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference (2022).
  3. [26]Idrissi, B. Y., Arjovsky, M., Pezeshki, M. & Lopez-Paz, D. Simple data balancing achieves competitive worst-group-accuracy. In Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning 336–351 (PMLR, 2022).
  4. [30]Bernhardt, M., Jones, C. & Glocker, B. Investigating underdiagnosis of AI algorithms in the presence of multiple sources of dataset bias. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.07856 (2022). 35710993 · arXiv
  5. [37]Wick, M., Paanda, S. & Tristan, J.-B. Unlocking fairness: a trade-off revisited. In Proc. 33rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 8783–8792 (Curran Associates Inc., 2019).
  6. [40]Rudzicz, F. & Saqur, R. Ethics of artificial intelligence in surgery. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.14302 (2020). · arXiv
  7. [43]Schrouff, J. et al. Maintaining fairness across distribution shift: do we have viable solutions for real-world applications?Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.01034 (2022). · arXiv
  8. [50]Buolamwini, J. & Gebru, T. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency 77–91 (PMLR, 2018).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kiyasseh, D., Laca, J., Haque, T. F., Otiato, M., Miles, B. J., Wagner, C., Donoho, D. A., Trinh, Q.-D., Anandkumar, A., & Hung, A. J.
Affiliations
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Houston Methodist (US)
  • St.-Antonius-Hospital Gronau (DE)
  • Children's National (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
  • Kiyasseh, Dani
  • Hung, Andrew J.
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2023-03-30
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
54-54
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4362506590
Cited by
53
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 10
FWCI
13.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Cancer Institute (5R01CA251579-02)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
algorithmic bias, surgical skill assessment, visual explanations, surgeon credentialing, robotic surgery, intraoperative video analysis, algorithmic fairness

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