PreprintCited by 165Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningCOVID-19 diagnosis using AI

Generative models improve fairness of medical classifiers under distribution shifts

Open access
Wiles, Olivia, Albuquerque, Isabela, Rebuffi, Sylvestre-Alvise, Tanno, Ryutaro, Roy, Abhijit Guha, Azizi, Shekoofeh, Belgrave, Danielle, Kohli, Pushmeet +4 more·2023·Nature Medicine

Preprint — published as 10.1038/s41591-024-02838-6 · Paper page

Abstract

Domain generalization remains a ubiquitous challenge for machine learning in healthcare. Model performance in real-world conditions might be lower than expected due to discrepancies between the data encountered in deployment environments and datasets used for model development. Under-representation of some groups or conditions during model development is a common cause of this phenomenon, which can have serious implications as it can exacerbate bias against groups, individuals or conditions and propagate unintended harms in their care. This challenge is often not readily addressed by targeted data acquisition and “labelling” by expert clinicians, which can be prohibitively expensive or practically impossible due to the rarity of diseases, conditions, or available clinical expertise. We hypothesize that advances in generative artificial intelligence may help mitigate this unmet need in a steerable fashion, algorithmically enriching our training dataset with synthetic examples that address shortfalls of underrepresented conditions or subgroups. We show that generative models can automatically learn realistic augmentations from data in a label-efficient manner. In particular, we leverage the higher abundance of unlabelled data to model the underlying distribution of different conditions and subgroups for an imaging modality. By conditioning generative models on appropriate labels (e.g., diagnostic labels and / or sensitive attribute labels), we can steer the distribution of synthetic examples according to specific requirements. We demonstrate that these learned augmentations make models more robust and statistically fair in- and out-of-distribution. To evaluate the generality of our approach, we study three distinct medical imaging contexts of varying difficulty: (i) histopathology images from a publicly available and widely adopted generalization benchmark, (ii) chest X-rays from publicly available clinical datasets, and (iii) dermatology images characterized by complex shifts and imaging conditions. The latter constitutes a particularly unstructured domain with various challenges. Two of these imaging modalities further require operating at a high-resolution, which requires developing faithful super-resolution techniques to recover fine details of each health condition. Complementing real training samples with synthetic ones improves the robustness of models in all three medical tasks and increases fairness by improving the accuracy of clinical diagnosis within underrepresented groups. Our proposed approach leads to stark improvements out-of-distribution across modalities: 7.7% prediction accuracy improvement in histopathology, 5.2% in chest radiology with 44.6% lower fairness gap and a striking 63.5% improvement in high-risk sensitivity for dermatology with a 7.5x reduction in fairness gap.

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 · 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2976332/v1

Cites

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

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 73 · Cited by 165

This paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Authors
Wiles, O., Albuquerque, I., Rebuffi, S.-A., Tanno, R., Roy, A. G., Azizi, S., Belgrave, D., Kohli, P., Cemgil, T., Karthikesalingam, A., Gowal, S., & Ktena, I.
Affiliations
  • Google DeepMind (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Google (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Google DeepMind
Corresponding author
Wiles, Olivia
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2023-05-31
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
1166-1173
ISSN
1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4394683903
Cited by
165
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 58 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 1
FWCI
15.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › COVID-19 diagnosis using AI
Keywords
generative models, diffusion models, domain generalization, distribution shift, algorithmic fairness, synthetic data augmentation, underrepresented groups, medical image classification, histopathology, chest radiography, dermatological images, model robustness, label efficiency
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence

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