Addressing Artificial Intelligence Bias in Retinal Disease Diagnostics
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This study evaluated generative methods to potentially mitigate AI bias when diagnosing diabetic retinopathy (DR) resulting from training data imbalance, or domain generalization which occurs when deep learning systems (DLS) face concepts at test/inference time they were not initially trained on. The public domain Kaggle-EyePACS dataset (88,692 fundi and 44,346 individuals, originally diverse for ethnicity) was modified by adding clinician-annotated labels and constructing an artificial scenario of data imbalance and domain generalization by disallowing training (but not testing) exemplars for images of retinas with DR warranting referral (DR-referable) and from darker-skin individuals, who presumably have greater concentration of melanin within uveal melanocytes, on average, contributing to retinal image pigmentation. A traditional/baseline diagnostic DLS was compared against new DLSs that would use training data augmented via generative models for debiasing. Accuracy (95% confidence intervals [CI]) of the baseline diagnostics DLS for fundus images of lighter-skin individuals was 73.0% (66.9%, 79.2%) vs. darker-skin of 60.5% (53.5%, 67.3%), demonstrating bias/disparity (delta=12.5%) (Welch t-test t=2.670, P=.008) in AI performance across protected subpopulations. Using novel generative methods for addressing missing subpopulation training data (DR-referable darker-skin) achieved instead accuracy, for lighter-skin, of 72.0% (65.8%, 78.2%), and for darker-skin, of 71.5% (65.2%,77.8%), demonstrating closer parity (delta=0.5%) in accuracy across subpopulations (Welch t-test t=0.111, P=.912). Findings illustrate how data imbalance and domain generalization can lead to disparity of accuracy across subpopulations, and show that novel generative methods of synthetic fundus images may play a role for debiasing AI.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 28 Apr 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 1; 2023: 1.
4 papers.
- 2021AI Fairness via Domain Adaptationcited by 8
- 2021Patch Attack Invariance: How Sensitive are Patch Attacks to 3D Pose?cited by 7
- 2022Classification Utility, Fairness, and Compactness via Tunable Information Bottleneck and R'enyi Measurescited by 1
- 2023Evaluating Trade-offs in Computer Vision Between Attribute Privacy, Fairness and Utilitycited by 1
- 2023Evaluating Trade-offs in Computer Vision Between Attribute Privacy, Fairness and Utility15 Feb 2023
- 2022Classification Utility, Fairness, and Compactness via Tunable Information Bottleneck and R'enyi Measures20 Jun 2022
- 2021Patch Attack Invariance: How Sensitive are Patch Attacks to 3D Pose?16 Aug 2021
- 2021AI Fairness via Domain Adaptation15 Mar 2021