Performance monitoring is essential for safe clinical deployment of image classification models. However, because ground-truth labels are typically unavailable in the target dataset, direct assessment of real-world model performance is infeasible. State-of-the-art performance estimation methods address this by leveraging confidence scores to estimate the target accuracy. Despite being a promising direction, the established methods mainly estimate the model's accuracy and are rarely evaluated in a clinical domain, where strong class imbalances and dataset shifts are common. Our contributions are twofold: First, we introduce generalisations of existing performance prediction methods that directly estimate the full confusion matrix. Then, we benchmark their performance on chest x-ray data in real-world distribution shifts as well as simulated covariate and prevalence shifts. The proposed confusion matrix estimation methods reliably predicted clinically relevant counting metrics on medical images under distribution shifts. However, our simulated shift scenarios exposed important failure modes of current performance estimation techniques, calling for a better understanding of real-world deployment contexts when implementing these performance monitoring techniques for postmarket surveillance of medical AI models.

Shifts in data distribution can substantially harm the performance of clinical AI models. Hence, various methods have been developed to detect the presence of such shifts at deployment time. However, root causes of dataset shifts are varied, and the choice of shift mitigation strategies is highly dependent on the precise type of shift encountered at test time. As such, detecting test-time dataset shift is not sufficient: precisely identifying which type of shift has occurred is critical. In this work, we propose the first unsupervised dataset shift identification framework, effectively distinguishing between prevalence shift (caused by a change in the label distribution), covariate shift (caused by a change in input characteristics) and mixed shifts (simultaneous prevalence and covariate shifts). We discuss the importance of self-supervised encoders for detecting subtle covariate shifts and propose a novel shift detector leveraging both self-supervised encoders and task model outputs for improved shift detection. We report promising results for the proposed shift identification framework across three different imaging modalities (chest radiography, digital mammography, and retinal fundus images) on five types of real-world dataset shifts, using four large publicly available datasets.

Domain gaps are among the most relevant roadblocks in the clinical translation of machine learning (ML)-based solutions for medical image analysis. While current research focuses on new training paradigms and network architectures, little attention is given to the specific effect of prevalence shifts on an algorithm deployed in practice. Such discrepancies between class frequencies in the data used for a method's development/validation and that in its deployment environment(s) are of great importance, for example in the context of artificial intelligence (AI) democratization, as disease prevalences may vary widely across time and location. Our contribution is twofold. First, we empirically demonstrate the potentially severe consequences of missing prevalence handling by analyzing (i) the extent of miscalibration, (ii) the deviation of the decision threshold from the optimum, and (iii) the ability of validation metrics to reflect neural network performance on the deployment population as a function of the discrepancy between development and deployment prevalence. Second, we propose a workflow for prevalence-aware image classification that uses estimated deployment prevalences to adjust a trained classifier to a new environment, without requiring additional annotated deployment data. Comprehensive experiments based on a diverse set of 30 medical classification tasks showcase the benefit of the proposed workflow in generating better classifier decisions and more reliable performance estimates compared to current practice.

Deep learning models have shown great potential for image-based diagnosis assisting clinical decision making. At the same time, an increasing number of reports raise concerns about the potential risk that machine learning could amplify existing health disparities due to human biases that are embedded in the training data. It is of great importance to carefully investigate the extent to which biases may be reproduced or even amplified if we wish to build fair artificial intelligence systems. Seyyed-Kalantari et al. advance this conversation by analysing the performance of a disease classifier across population subgroups. They raise performance disparities related to underdiagnosis as a point of concern; we identify areas from this analysis which we believe deserve additional attention. Specifically, we wish to highlight some theoretical and practical difficulties associated with assessing model fairness through testing on data drawn from the same biased distribution as the training data, especially when the sources and amount of biases are unknown.