Cited by 30COVID-19 diagnosis using AIRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Deep learning models for COVID-19 chest X-ray classification: preventing shortcut learning using feature Disentanglement

Open access
Trivedi, Anusua, Robinson, Caleb, Blazes, Marian, Ortiz, Anthony, Desbiens, Jocelyn, Gupta, Sunil, Dodhia, Rahul, Bhatraju, Pavan K. +4 more·2022·PLOS ONE

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

In response to the COVID-19 global pandemic, recent research has proposed creating deep learning based models that use chest radiographs (CXRs) in a variety of clinical tasks to help manage the crisis. However, the size of existing datasets of CXRs from COVID-19+ patients are relatively small, and researchers often pool CXR data from multiple sources, for example, using different x-ray machines in various patient populations under different clinical scenarios. Deep learning models trained on such datasets have been shown to overfit to erroneous features instead of learning pulmonary characteristics -- a phenomenon known as shortcut learning. We propose adding feature disentanglement to the training process, forcing the models to identify pulmonary features from the images while penalizing them for learning features that can discriminate between the original datasets that the images come from. We find that models trained in this way indeed have better generalization performance on unseen data; in the best case we found that it improved AUC by 0.13 on held out data. We further find that this outperforms masking out non-lung parts of the CXRs and performing histogram equalization, both of which are recently proposed methods for removing biases in CXR datasets.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0274098

Cites

31 of 31 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?

  • AI models learn the underlying data set distribution instead of disease characteristics, leading to model failure.

    “AI models learn the underlying data set distribution instead of disease characteristics leading to model failure. 51”

    From AI pitfalls and what not to do: mitigating bias in AI (2023) · cites this paper as [51]

  • Shortcut learning can be mitigated using techniques including feature disentanglement and pre-processing techniques like histogram equalization and lung masking.

    “This phenomenon, also called shortcut learning, can be mitigated using various techniques including feature disentanglement (where you reward a model when it learns disease characteristics and penalize the model when it learns features that can discriminate between the original data sets where the images are obtained) 51 ; applying pre-processing techniques like histogram equalization to correct”

    From AI pitfalls and what not to do: mitigating bias in AI (2023) · cites this paper as [51]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Trivedi, A., Robinson, C., Blazes, M., Ortiz, A., Desbiens, J., Gupta, S., Dodhia, R., Bhatraju, P. K., Liles, W. C., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Lee, A. Y., & Lavista Ferres, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Lee, Aaron Y.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2022-10-06
Volume
17
Issue
10
Pages
e0274098
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4302760599
Cited by
28
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • national institutes of health (K23DK116967)
  • national eye institute (K23EY029246)
  • research to prevent blindness
  • lantham vision innovation award
  • C. Dan and Irene Hunter Endowed Professorship
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › COVID-19 diagnosis using AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, chest X-ray classification, shortcut learning, feature disentanglement, domain generalization, cross-dataset generalization, data bias, histogram equalization, small medical image datasets

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