mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

On the Role of Calibration in Benchmarking Algorithmic Fairness for Skin Cancer Detection

arXiv 2511.07700 ↗First posted 10 Nov 2025cs.LG cs.CV eess.IVcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) models have demonstrated expert-level performance in melanoma detection, yet their clinical adoption is hindered by performance disparities across demographic subgroups such as gender, race, and age. Previous efforts to benchmark the performance of AI models have primarily focused on assessing model performance using group fairness metrics that rely on the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC), which does not provide insights into a model's ability to provide accurate estimates. In line with clinical assessments, this paper addresses this gap by incorporating calibration as a complementary benchmarking metric to AUROC-based fairness metrics. Calibration evaluates the alignment between predicted probabilities and observed event rates, offering deeper insights into subgroup biases. We assess the performance of the leading skin cancer detection algorithm of the ISIC 2020 Challenge on the ISIC 2020 Challenge dataset and the PROVE-AI dataset, and compare it with the second and third place models, focusing on subgroups defined by sex, race (Fitzpatrick Skin Tone), and age. Our findings reveal that while existing models enhance discriminative accuracy, they often over-diagnose risk and exhibit calibration issues when applied to new datasets. This study underscores the necessity for comprehensive model auditing strategies and extensive metadata collection to achieve equitable AI-driven healthcare solutions. All code is publicly available at https://github.com/bdominique/testing_strong_calibration.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Nov 2025.

Builds on

18 of 42 references.

References · 18

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  2. 2019A Comprehensive Survey on Transfer Learningcited by 1,160
  3. 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 804
  4. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  5. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 586
  6. 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 384
  7. 2018AI Fairness 360: An Extensible Toolkit for Detecting, Understanding, and Mitigating Unwanted Algorithmic Biascited by 319
  8. 2020Fairness without Demographics through Adversarially Reweighted Learningcited by 251
  9. 2018Multiaccuracy: Black-Box Post-Processing for Fairness in Classificationcited by 222
  10. 2020A Patient-Centric Dataset of Images and Metadata for Identifying Melanomas Using Clinical Contextcited by 146
  11. 201850 Years of Test (Un)fairness: Lessons for Machine Learningcited by 101
  12. 2017From Parity to Preference-based Notions of Fairness in Classificationcited by 60
6 more
  1. 2024FairMedFM: Fairness Benchmarking for Medical Imaging Foundation Modelscited by 47
  2. 2020Identifying Melanoma Images using EfficientNet Ensemble: Winning Solution to the SIIM-ISIC Melanoma Classification Challengecited by 25
  3. 2017Calibration for the (Computationally-Identifiable) Massescited by 23
  4. 2019Is a Classification Procedure Good Enough? A Goodness-of-Fit Assessment Tool for Classification Learningcited by 9
  5. 2019Goodness-of-fit testing in high-dimensional generalized linear modelscited by 8
  6. 2023Is this model reliable for everyone? Testing for strong calibrationcited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.