Petersen, Eike
Slicing Through Bias: Explaining Performance Gaps in Medical Image Analysis using Slice Discovery Methods
Olesen, Vincent, Weng, Nina, Feragen, Aasa, Petersen, Eike
Machine learning models have achieved high overall accuracy in medical image analysis. However, performance disparities on specific patient groups pose challenges to their clinical utility, safety, and fairness. This can affect known patient groups - such as those based on sex, age, or disease subtype - as well as previously unknown and unlabeled groups. Furthermore, the root cause of such observed performance disparities is often challenging to uncover, hindering mitigation efforts. In this paper, to address these issues, we leverage Slice Discovery Methods (SDMs) to identify interpretable underperforming subsets of data and formulate hypotheses regarding the cause of observed performance disparities. We introduce a novel SDM and apply it in a case study on the classification of pneumothorax and atelectasis from chest x-rays. Our study demonstrates the effectiveness of SDMs in hypothesis formulation and yields an explanation of previously observed but unexplained performance disparities between male and female patients in widely used chest X-ray datasets and models. Our findings indicate shortcut learning in both classification tasks, through the presence of chest drains and ECG wires, respectively. Sex-based differences in the prevalence of these shortcut features appear to cause the observed classification performance gap, representing a previously underappreciated interaction between shortcut learning and model fairness analyses.
Are demographically invariant models and representations in medical imaging fair?
Petersen, Eike, Ferrante, Enzo, Ganz, Melanie, Feragen, Aasa
Medical imaging models have been shown to encode information about patient demographics such as age, race, and sex in their latent representation, raising concerns about their potential for discrimination. Here, we ask whether requiring models not to encode demographic attributes is desirable. We point out that marginal and class-conditional representation invariance imply the standard group fairness notions of demographic parity and equalized odds, respectively, while additionally requiring risk distribution matching, thus potentially equalizing away important group differences. Enforcing the traditional fairness notions directly instead does not entail these strong constraints. Moreover, representationally invariant models may still take demographic attributes into account for deriving predictions. The latter can be prevented using counterfactual notions of (individual) fairness or invariance. We caution, however, that properly defining medical image counterfactuals with respect to demographic attributes is highly challenging. Finally, we posit that encoding demographic attributes may even be advantageous if it enables learning a task-specific encoding of demographic features that does not rely on social constructs such as 'race' and 'gender.' We conclude that demographically invariant representations are neither necessary nor sufficient for fairness in medical imaging. Models may need to encode demographic attributes, lending further urgency to calls for comprehensive model fairness assessments in terms of predictive performance across diverse patient groups.
Are Sex-based Physiological Differences the Cause of Gender Bias for Chest X-ray Diagnosis?
Weng, Nina, Bigdeli, Siavash, Petersen, Eike, Feragen, Aasa
While many studies have assessed the fairness of AI algorithms in the medical field, the causes of differences in prediction performance are often unknown. This lack of knowledge about the causes of bias hampers the efficacy of bias mitigation, as evidenced by the fact that simple dataset balancing still often performs best in reducing performance gaps but is unable to resolve all performance differences. In this work, we investigate the causes of gender bias in machine learning-based chest X-ray diagnosis. In particular, we explore the hypothesis that breast tissue leads to underexposure of the lungs and causes lower model performance. Methodologically, we propose a new sampling method which addresses the highly skewed distribution of recordings per patient in two widely used public datasets, while at the same time reducing the impact of label errors. Our comprehensive analysis of gender differences across diseases, datasets, and gender representations in the training set shows that dataset imbalance is not the sole cause of performance differences. Moreover, relative group performance differs strongly between datasets, indicating important dataset-specific factors influencing male/female group performance. Finally, we investigate the effect of breast tissue more specifically, by cropping out the breasts from recordings, finding that this does not resolve the observed performance gaps. In conclusion, our results indicate that dataset-specific factors, not fundamental physiological differences, are the main drivers of male--female performance gaps in chest X-ray analyses on widely used NIH and CheXpert Dataset.
That Label's Got Style: Handling Label Style Bias for Uncertain Image Segmentation
Zepf, Kilian, Petersen, Eike, Frellsen, Jes, Feragen, Aasa
Segmentation uncertainty models predict a distribution over plausible segmentations for a given input, which they learn from the annotator variation in the training set. However, in practice these annotations can differ systematically in the way they are generated, for example through the use of different labeling tools. This results in datasets that contain both data variability and differing label styles. In this paper, we demonstrate that applying state-of-the-art segmentation uncertainty models on such datasets can lead to model bias caused by the different label styles. We present an updated modelling objective conditioning on labeling style for aleatoric uncertainty estimation, and modify two state-of-the-art-architectures for segmentation uncertainty accordingly. We show with extensive experiments that this method reduces label style bias, while improving segmentation performance, increasing the applicability of segmentation uncertainty models in the wild. We curate two datasets, with annotations in different label styles, which we will make publicly available along with our code upon publication.
On (assessing) the fairness of risk score models
Petersen, Eike, Ganz, Melanie, Holm, Sune Hannibal, Feragen, Aasa
To date, much of the algorithmic fairness literature has focused on the fairness of classification systems which are used, for example, to decide whether a person should be granted a loan or be released from prison on bail. Even in cases where such classification decisions are based on risk score models - such as in the highly influential COMPAS case [5, 11, 16] - their fairness is typically considered a function of the decisions, or classifications, made by the system. Of course, any risk score model can be turned into a classifier by selecting a probability threshold (in binary classification) or predicting the most likely outcome (in multi-class classification). Nevertheless, we argue here that it is worthwhile to distinguish between these two settings and consider the fairness of risk models independent of their downstream use, be it as the basis for a classifier or otherwise. We discuss notions of fairness for risk scores as well as their relationship to classical, classification-level notions of fairness, and we develop robust tools to empirically quantify risk score fairness. We illustrate our methodology in two case studies, one situated in the criminal justice system and one in healthcare. Why distinguish between fair models and fair decisions? In the statistical literature, it is generally considered desirable to distinguish between inference (e.g., identifying a risk score model) and subsequent decision-making (e.g., deriving a classification from a risk score model): while the former represents a purely statistical task, the latter depends on subjective
On Approximate Nonlinear Gaussian Message Passing On Factor Graphs
Petersen, Eike, Hoffmann, Christian, Rostalski, Philipp
Factor graphs have recently gained increasing attention as a unified framework for representing and constructing algorithms for signal processing, estimation, and control. One capability that does not seem to be well explored within the factor graph tool kit is the ability to handle deterministic nonlinear transformations, such as those occurring in nonlinear filtering and smoothing problems, using tabulated message passing rules. In this contribution, we provide general forward (filtering) and backward (smoothing) approximate Gaussian message passing rules for deterministic nonlinear transformation nodes in arbitrary factor graphs fulfilling a Markov property, based on numerical quadrature procedures for the forward pass and a Rauch-Tung-Striebel-type approximation of the backward pass. These message passing rules can be employed for deriving many algorithms for solving nonlinear problems using factor graphs, as is illustrated by the proposition of a nonlinear modified Bryson-Frazier (MBF) smoother based on the presented message passing rules.