Fairness in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Assessing Sex and Racial Bias in Deep Learning-Based Segmentation.
cardiac magnetic resonance
deep learning
fair AI
inequality fairness in deep learning-based CMR segmentation
segmentation
Journal
Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine
ISSN: 2297-055X
Titre abrégé: Front Cardiovasc Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101653388
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
21
01
2022
accepted:
02
03
2022
entrez:
25
4
2022
pubmed:
26
4
2022
medline:
26
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have been proposed for automation of cine CMR segmentation for functional quantification. However, in other applications AI models have been shown to have potential for sex and/or racial bias. The objective of this paper is to perform the first analysis of sex/racial bias in AI-based cine CMR segmentation using a large-scale database. A state-of-the-art deep learning (DL) model was used for automatic segmentation of both ventricles and the myocardium from cine short-axis CMR. The dataset consisted of end-diastole and end-systole short-axis cine CMR images of 5,903 subjects from the UK Biobank database (61.5 ± 7.1 years, 52% male, 81% white). To assess sex and racial bias, we compared Dice scores and errors in measurements of biventricular volumes and function between patients grouped by race and sex. To investigate whether segmentation bias could be explained by potential confounders, a multivariate linear regression and ANCOVA were performed. Results on the overall population showed an excellent agreement between the manual and automatic segmentations. We found statistically significant differences in Dice scores between races (white ∼94% vs. minority ethnic groups 86-89%) as well as in absolute/relative errors in volumetric and functional measures, showing that the AI model was biased against minority racial groups, even after correction for possible confounders. The results of a multivariate linear regression analysis showed that no covariate could explain the Dice score bias between racial groups. However, for the Mixed and Black race groups, sex showed a weak positive association with the Dice score. The results of an ANCOVA analysis showed that race was the main factor that can explain the overall difference in Dice scores between racial groups. We have shown that racial bias can exist in DL-based cine CMR segmentation models when training with a database that is sex-balanced but not race-balanced such as the UK Biobank.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have been proposed for automation of cine CMR segmentation for functional quantification. However, in other applications AI models have been shown to have potential for sex and/or racial bias. The objective of this paper is to perform the first analysis of sex/racial bias in AI-based cine CMR segmentation using a large-scale database.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A state-of-the-art deep learning (DL) model was used for automatic segmentation of both ventricles and the myocardium from cine short-axis CMR. The dataset consisted of end-diastole and end-systole short-axis cine CMR images of 5,903 subjects from the UK Biobank database (61.5 ± 7.1 years, 52% male, 81% white). To assess sex and racial bias, we compared Dice scores and errors in measurements of biventricular volumes and function between patients grouped by race and sex. To investigate whether segmentation bias could be explained by potential confounders, a multivariate linear regression and ANCOVA were performed.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Results on the overall population showed an excellent agreement between the manual and automatic segmentations. We found statistically significant differences in Dice scores between races (white ∼94% vs. minority ethnic groups 86-89%) as well as in absolute/relative errors in volumetric and functional measures, showing that the AI model was biased against minority racial groups, even after correction for possible confounders. The results of a multivariate linear regression analysis showed that no covariate could explain the Dice score bias between racial groups. However, for the Mixed and Black race groups, sex showed a weak positive association with the Dice score. The results of an ANCOVA analysis showed that race was the main factor that can explain the overall difference in Dice scores between racial groups.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
We have shown that racial bias can exist in DL-based cine CMR segmentation models when training with a database that is sex-balanced but not race-balanced such as the UK Biobank.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35463778
doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.859310
pmc: PMC9021445
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
859310Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_17228
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_QA137853
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/M016560/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Puyol-Antón, Ruijsink, Mariscal Harana, Piechnik, Neubauer, Petersen, Razavi, Chowienczyk and King.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
SEP provided consultancy to and is shareholder of Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Inc., Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Nature. 2017 Jun 28;546(7660):686
pubmed: 28658222
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Mar;13(3):684-695
pubmed: 31326477
J Am Heart Assoc. 2015 Mar 13;4(3):e001264
pubmed: 25770024
Nat Methods. 2021 Feb;18(2):203-211
pubmed: 33288961
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Jun 9;117(23):12592-12594
pubmed: 32457147
JAMA. 1989 Jun 9;261(22):3242-3
pubmed: 2716154
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016 Feb 01;18:8
pubmed: 26830817
Radiology. 2015 Dec;277(3):707-15
pubmed: 26069924
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2018 Nov;37(11):2514-2525
pubmed: 29994302
Circulation. 2011 Jun 7;123(22):2542-51
pubmed: 21646505
Am J Clin Nutr. 2015 Sep;102(3):533-9
pubmed: 26201816
Nat Med. 2018 Oct;24(10):1559-1567
pubmed: 30224757
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2020 Mar;13(3):e007988
pubmed: 32064914
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017 Jul 18;19(1):52
pubmed: 28720123
Nutrition. 1989 Sep-Oct;5(5):303-11; discussion 312-3
pubmed: 2520314
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Jun 12;71(23):2668-2679
pubmed: 29880128
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jan 1;37(1):24-34
pubmed: 26530104
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017 Feb 3;19(1):18
pubmed: 28178995
Pac Symp Biocomput. 2021;26:232-243
pubmed: 33691020
PLoS Med. 2015 Mar 31;12(3):e1001779
pubmed: 25826379
J Card Fail. 2021 Feb 7;:
pubmed: 33662581
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2018 Sep 14;20(1):65
pubmed: 30217194