Cited by 138Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Understanding and Mitigating Bias in Imaging Artificial Intelligence

Open access
Tejani, Ali S., Ng, Yee Seng, Xi, Yin, Rayan, Jesse C.·2024·RadioGraphics

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms are prone to bias at multiple stages of model development, with potential for exacerbating health disparities. However, bias in imaging AI is a complex topic that encompasses multiple coexisting definitions. Bias may refer to unequal preference to a person or group owing to preexisting attitudes or beliefs, either intentional or unintentional. However, cognitive bias refers to systematic deviation from objective judgment due to reliance on heuristics, and statistical bias refers to differences between true and expected values, commonly manifesting as systematic error in model prediction (ie, a model with output unrepresentative of real-world conditions). Clinical decisions informed by biased models may lead to patient harm due to action on inaccurate AI results or exacerbate health inequities due to differing performance among patient populations. However, while inequitable bias can harm patients in this context, a mindful approach leveraging equitable bias can address underrepresentation of minority groups or rare diseases. Radiologists should also be aware of bias after AI deployment such as automation bias, or a tendency to agree with automated decisions despite contrary evidence. Understanding common sources of imaging AI bias and the consequences of using biased models can guide preventive measures to mitigate its impact. Accordingly, the authors focus on sources of bias at stages along the imaging machine learning life cycle, attempting to simplify potentially intimidating technical terminology for general radiologists using AI tools in practice or collaborating with data scientists and engineers for AI tool development. The authors review definitions of bias in AI, describe common sources of bias, and present recommendations to guide quality control measures to mitigate the impact of bias in imaging AI. Understanding the terms featured in this article will enable a proactive approach to identifying and mitigating bias in imaging AI. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available in the supplemental material. See the invited commentary by Rouzrokh and Erickson in this issue.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/rg.230067

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • As AI tools learn from archival data, a narrowed data source results in AI models that are not generalizable in heterogeneous patient populations with different demographics, clinical characteristics, and disease prevalence, leading to perpetuated bias in the final AI model.

    “As AI tools learn from archival data, a narrowed data source results in AI models that are not generalizable in heterogeneous patient populations with different demographics, clinical characteristics, and disease prevalence, leading to perpetuated bias in the final AI model.120, 121”
  • Underrepresentation or overrepresentation of diseases or events compared with their prevalence in the general population or clinical practice causes class imbalance due to an uneven distribution between the training data and the actual population to which the AI model is applied.

    “This can occur when some diseases or events are collected with underrepresentation or overrepresentation compared with their prevalence in the general population or clinical practice due to the limited patient diversity included in the training data; this causes a class imbalance due to an uneven distribution between the training data and the actual population to which the AI model is applied.120”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tejani, A. S., Ng, Y. S., Xi, Y., & Rayan, J. C.
Affiliations
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
Venue
RadioGraphics
Published
2024-05-01
Volume
44
Issue
5
Pages
e230067-e230067
ISSN
  • 0271-5333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1323
OpenAlex
W4394946404
Cited by
138
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 13 · 2022: 1
FWCI
12.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Radiographics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
algorithmic bias, health disparities, cognitive biases, statistical bias, automation bias, minority groups, rare diseases, bias mitigation, quality control, radiology, machine learning lifecycle
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Automation, Humans, 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