Cited by 631COVID-19 diagnosis using AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

AI for radiographic COVID-19 detection selects shortcuts over signal

Open access
DeGrave, Alex J., Janizek, Joseph D., Lee, Su-In·2021·Nature Machine Intelligence

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and radiologists have recently reported AI systems that accurately detect COVID-19 in chest radiographs. However, the robustness of these systems remains unclear. Using state-of-the-art techniques in explainable AI, we demonstrate that recent deep learning systems to detect COVID-19 from chest radiographs rely on confounding factors rather than medical pathology, creating an alarming situation in which the systems appear accurate, but fail when tested in new hospitals. We observe that the approach to obtain training data for these AI systems introduces a nearly ideal scenario for AI to learn these spurious ‘shortcuts’. Because this approach to data collection has also been used to obtain training data for the detection of COVID-19 in computed tomography scans and for medical imaging tasks related to other diseases, our study reveals a far-reaching problem in medical-imaging AI. In addition, we show that evaluation of a model on external data is insufficient to ensure AI systems rely on medically relevant pathology, because the undesired ‘shortcuts’ learned by AI systems may not impair performance in new hospitals. These findings demonstrate that explainable AI should be seen as a prerequisite to clinical deployment of machine-learning healthcare models. The urgency of the developing COVID-19 epidemic has led to a large number of novel diagnostic approaches, many of which use machine learning. DeGrave and colleagues use explainable AI techniques to analyse a selection of these approaches and find that the methods frequently learn to identify features unrelated to the actual disease.

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/s42256-021-00338-7

Cites

18 of 18 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?

  • Almost all studies report demographic and non-demographic characteristics of the study population, such as age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disease severity, and comorbidities.

    “Almost all studies report demographic and non-demographic characteristics of the study population, such as age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disease severity, and comorbidities, and some studies also include information on geographical location and study site.”

    From The medical algorithmic audit (2022) · cites this paper as [32]

    In “Evaluation of models on new hospital systems,” the paper recommends routine reporting of metadata on patient and hospital-system confounds; it does not assess how often other studies report population characteristics. “Shortcuts have a variable effect on generalization” discusses patient sex in the authors’ own datasets. Searches for age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disease severity, comorbidities, and demographic reporting found no passage supporting the claim that almost all studies report these characteristics. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Deep learning models on chest X-ray image datasets were not relying on medical pathology but instead on confounding factors for COVID-19 detection.

    “It was demonstrated that deep learning models on chest X-ray image datasets were not relying on medical pathology but instead on confounding factors for COVID-19 detection [41,43].”

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: 29

  1. Kundu, S., Elhalawani, H., Gichoya, J. W. & Kahn, C. E.Jr How might AI and chest imaging help unravel COVID-19's mysteries? Radiol. Artificial Intell 2, 3 (2020).
  2. Ghoshal, B. & Tucker, A. Estimating uncertainty and interpretability in deep learning for coronavirus (COVID-19) detection. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/ pdf/2003.10769.pdf (2020).
  3. Wang, L., Lin, Z. Q. & Wong, A. COVID-Net: a tailored deep convolutional neural network design for detection of COVID-19 cases from chest X-ray images. Sci. Rep. 10, 19549 (2020).
  4. Ozturk, T. et al. Automated detection of COVID-19 cases using deep neural networks with X-ray images. Comput. Biol. Med. 121, 103792 (2020).
  5. Brunese, L., Mercaldo, F., Reginelli, A. & Santone, A. Explainable deep learning for pulmonary disease and coronavirus COVID-19 detection from X-rays. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 196, 105608 (2020).
  6. Laghi, A. Cautions about radiologic diagnosis of COVID-19 infection driven by artificial intelligence. Lancet Digit. Health 2, e225 (2020).
  7. Al-Masni, M. A., Kim, D.-H. & Kim, T.-S. Multiple skin lesions diagnostics via integrated deep convolutional networks for segmentation and classification. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 190, 105351 (2020).
  8. Huang, G., Liu, Z., Van Der Maaten, L. & Weinberger, K. Q. Densely connected convolutional networks. In Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 4700-4708 (IEEE, 2017).
  9. Sundararajan, M., Taly, A. & Yan, Q. Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. In Proc. 34th International Conference on Machine Learning Vol. 70, 3319-3328 (PMLR, 2017).
  10. Singla, S., Pollack, B., Chen, J. & Batmanghelich, K. Explanation by progressive exaggeration. In International Conference on Learning Representations (2019).
  11. Sandler, M., Howard, A., Zhu, M., Zhmoginov, A. & Chen, L.-C. MobileNetV2: inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 4510-4520 (IEEE, 2018).
  12. Xie, S., Girshick, R., Dollár, P., Tu, Z. & He, K. Aggregated residual transformations for deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 5987-5995 (IEEE, 2017).
  13. Wang, X. et al. ChestX-ray8: hospital-scale chest X-ray database and benchmarks on weakly-supervised classification and localization of common thorax diseases. In Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 2097-2106 (IEEE, 2017).
  14. Li, M. D. et al. Automated assessment and tracking of COVID-19 pulmonary disease severity on chest radiographs using convolutional Siamese neural networks. Radiol. Artif. Intell. 2, e200079 (2020).
  15. Bustos, A., Pertusa, A., Salinas, J.-M. & de la Iglesia-Vayá, M. PadChest: a large chest X-ray image dataset with multi-label annotated reports. Med. Image Anal. 66, 101797 (2020).
  16. Vayá, M. d. l. I. et al. BIMCV COVID-19+: a large annotated dataset of RX and CT images from COVID-19 patients. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/ pdf/2006.01174.pdf (2020).
  17. Castro, D. C., Walker, I. & Glocker, B. Causality matters in medical imaging. Nat. Commun. 11, 3673 (2020).
  18. Richens, J. G., Lee, C. M. & Johri, S. Improving the accuracy of medical diagnosis with causal machine learning. Nat. Commun. 11, 3923 (2020).
  19. Janizek, J. D., Erion, G., DeGrave, A. J. & Lee, S.-I. An adversarial approach for the robust classification of pneumonia from chest radiographs. In Proc. ACM Conference on Health, Inference and Learning 69-79 (ACM, 2020).
  20. Sagawa, S., Raghunathan, A., Koh, P. W. & Liang, P. An investigation of why overparameterization exacerbates spurious correlations. In Proc. 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) Vol. 119, 8346-8356 (PMLR, 2020).
  21. Bressem, K. K. et al. Comparing different deep learning architectures for classification of chest radiographs. Sci. Rep. 10, 13590 (2020).
  22. Quionero-Candela, J., Sugiyama, M., Schwaighofer, A. & Lawrence, N. D. Dataset Shift in Machine Learning (MIT Press, 2009).
  23. Ng, M.-Y. et al. Imaging profile of the COVID-19 infection: radiologic findings and literature review. Radiol. Cardiothorac. Imaging 2, e200034 (2020).
  24. Wong, H. Y. F. et al. Frequency and distribution of chest radiographic findings in COVID-19 positive patients. Radiology https://doi.org/10.1148/ radiol.2020201160 (2020). · DOI
  25. Deng, J. et al. ImageNet: a large-scale hierarchical image database. In Proc. 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 248-255 (IEEE, 2009).
  26. Paszke, A. et al. PyTorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (eds
  27. Wallach, H. et al.) 8024-8035 (Curran Associates, 2019); http://papers. neurips.cc/paper/9015-pytorch-an-imperative-style-high -performance-deep-learning-library.pdf
  28. Sturmfels, P., Lundberg, S. & Lee, S.-I. Visualizing the impact of feature attribution baselines. Distill 5, e22 (2020).
  29. Jin, Y.-H. et al. A rapid advice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infected pneumonia (standard version). Mil. Med. Res. 7, 4 (2020).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DeGrave, A. J., Janizek, J. D., & Lee, S.-I.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Lee, Su-In
Venue
Nature Machine Intelligence
Published
2021-05-31
Volume
3
Issue
7
Pages
610-619
ISSN
2522-5839 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3171849353
Cited by
631
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 134 · 2025: 87 · 2024: 116 · 2023: 126 · 2022: 102 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1
FWCI
53.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Machine Intelligence (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • NSF | BIO | Division of Biological Infrastructure (DBI-1552309)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health (R35 GM 128638, R01 AG 061132)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › COVID-19 diagnosis using AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
COVID-19 detection, chest radiograph, shortcut learning, spurious correlations, confounding factors, explainable AI, machine learning robustness, external validation, training data collection, medical imaging AI, clinical implementation of AI

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