Not all biases are bad: equitable and inequitable biases in machine learning and radiology.
Bias
Equity
Ethics
Machine learning
Radiology
Journal
Insights into imaging
ISSN: 1869-4101
Titre abrégé: Insights Imaging
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101532453
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Feb 2021
10 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
10
09
2020
accepted:
14
12
2020
entrez:
10
2
2021
pubmed:
11
2
2021
medline:
11
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The application of machine learning (ML) technologies in medicine generally but also in radiology more specifically is hoped to improve clinical processes and the provision of healthcare. A central motivation in this regard is to advance patient treatment by reducing human error and increasing the accuracy of prognosis, diagnosis and therapy decisions. There is, however, also increasing awareness about bias in ML technologies and its potentially harmful consequences. Biases refer to systematic distortions of datasets, algorithms, or human decision making. These systematic distortions are understood to have negative effects on the quality of an outcome in terms of accuracy, fairness, or transparency. But biases are not only a technical problem that requires a technical solution. Because they often also have a social dimension, the 'distorted' outcomes they yield often have implications for equity. This paper assesses different types of biases that can emerge within applications of ML in radiology, and discusses in what cases such biases are problematic. Drawing upon theories of equity in healthcare, we argue that while some biases are harmful and should be acted upon, others might be unproblematic and even desirable-exactly because they can contribute to overcome inequities.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33564955
doi: 10.1186/s13244-020-00955-7
pii: 10.1186/s13244-020-00955-7
pmc: PMC7872878
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
13Références
CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 Mar;69(2):127-157
pubmed: 30720861
Med Decis Making. 2013 Jan;33(1):98-107
pubmed: 23300205
Insights Imaging. 2019 Oct 31;10(1):105
pubmed: 31673823
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018 Dec 29;18(1):139
pubmed: 30594159
Radiology. 2018 Aug;288(2):318-328
pubmed: 29944078
Insights Imaging. 2017 Feb;8(1):171-182
pubmed: 27928712
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Jan-Feb;19(1):121-7
pubmed: 21685142
Brain Inform. 2016 Jun;3(2):119-131
pubmed: 27747607
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Mar 1;24(2):423-431
pubmed: 27516495
JAMA. 2019 Nov 22;:
pubmed: 31755905
PLoS Med. 2018 Nov 20;15(11):e1002686
pubmed: 30457988
Cancer Control. 2014 Jul;21(3):209-14
pubmed: 24955704
Acad Radiol. 2019 Jun;26(6):833-845
pubmed: 30559033
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Mar 1;18(1):19
pubmed: 28249596
J Am Coll Radiol. 2016 Dec;13(12 Pt A):1426-1432
pubmed: 27916109
J Integr Bioinform. 2018 May 10;15(3):
pubmed: 29746254
J Oncol Pract. 2018 Jan;14(1):e1-e10
pubmed: 29099678
J Med Ethics. 2020 Mar;46(3):205-211
pubmed: 31748206
JAMA. 2018 Jan 2;319(1):19-20
pubmed: 29261830
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002 Sep;56(9):647-52
pubmed: 12177079
Radiographics. 2018 Jan-Feb;38(1):236-247
pubmed: 29194009
JAMA. 2017 Aug 8;318(6):517-518
pubmed: 28727867
J Am Coll Radiol. 2017 Nov;14(11):1403-1411
pubmed: 28676305
Ann Epidemiol. 2013 Apr;23(4):210-4
pubmed: 23453384
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Nov 1;178(11):1544-1547
pubmed: 30128552
J Am Coll Radiol. 2016 Dec;13(12 Pt A):1421-1425
pubmed: 27793506
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2019 Mar - Apr;48(2):108-110
pubmed: 30049525
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Mar;192(3):561-4
pubmed: 19234247
J Am Coll Radiol. 2018 Feb;15(2):350-359
pubmed: 29158061