mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Towards unraveling calibration biases in medical image analysis

arXiv 2305.05101 ↗First posted 9 May 2023eess.IV cs.CV cs.LGcited by 7

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In recent years the development of artificial intelligence (AI) systems for automated medical image analysis has gained enormous momentum. At the same time, a large body of work has shown that AI systems can systematically and unfairly discriminate against certain populations in various application scenarios. These two facts have motivated the emergence of algorithmic fairness studies in this field. Most research on healthcare algorithmic fairness to date has focused on the assessment of biases in terms of classical discrimination metrics such as AUC and accuracy. Potential biases in terms of model calibration, however, have only recently begun to be evaluated. This is especially important when working with clinical decision support systems, as predictive uncertainty is key for health professionals to optimally evaluate and combine multiple sources of information. In this work we study discrimination and calibration biases in models trained for automatic detection of malignant dermatological conditions from skin lesions images. Importantly, we show how several typically employed calibration metrics are systematically biased with respect to sample sizes, and how this can lead to erroneous fairness analysis if not taken into consideration. This is of particular relevance to fairness studies, where data imbalance results in drastic sample size differences between demographic sub-groups, which, if not taken into account, can act as confounders.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 May 2023.

Builds on

11 of 30 references.

References · 11

  1. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,267
  2. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  3. 2019Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shiftcited by 1,274
  4. 2020Calibrating Deep Neural Networks using Focal Losscited by 353
  5. 2021Evaluating Deep Neural Networks Trained on Clinical Images in Dermatology with the Fitzpatrick 17k Datasetcited by 184
  6. 2020PAD-UFES-20: a skin lesion dataset composed of patient data and clinical images collected from smartphonescited by 116
  7. 2020Ethical Machine Learning in Health Carecited by 112
  8. 2022Better Uncertainty Calibration via Proper Scores for Classification and Beyondcited by 65
  9. 2022Towards Transparency in Dermatology Image Datasets with Skin Tone Annotations by Experts, Crowds, and an Algorithmcited by 35
  10. 2021Estimating and Improving Fairness with Adversarial Learningcited by 26
  11. 2022Analysis and Comparison of Classification Metricscited by 16

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 1; 2025: 3.

7 papers.