Abstract
Background Artificial Intelligence (AI) models have demonstrated expert-level performance in image-based recognition and diagnostic tasks, resulting in increased adoption and FDA approvals for clinical applications. The new challenge in AI is to understand the limitations of models to reduce potential harm. Particularly, unknown disparities based on demographic factors could encrypt currently existing inequalities worsening patient care for some groups.
Method Following PRISMA guidelines, we present a systematic review of ‘fair’ deep learning modeling techniques for natural and medical image applications which were published between year 2011 to 2021. Our search used Covidence review management software and incorporates articles from PubMed, IEEE, and ACM search engines and three reviewers independently review the manuscripts.
Results Inter-rater agreement was 0.89 and conflicts were resolved by obtaining consensus between three reviewers. Our search initially retrieved 692 studies but after careful screening, our review included 22 manuscripts that carried four prevailing themes; ‘fair’ training dataset generation (4/22), representation learning (10/22), model disparity across institutions (5/22) and model fairness with respect to patient demographics (3/22). However, we observe that often discussion regarding fairness are also limited to analyzing existing bias without further establishing methodologies to overcome model disparities. Particularly for medical imaging, most papers lack the use of a standardized set of metrics to measure fairness/bias in algorithms.
Discussion We benchmark the current literature regarding fairness in AI-based image analysis and highlighted the existing challenges. Based on the current research trends, exploration of adversarial learning for demographic/camera/institution agnostic models is an important direction to minimize disparity gaps for imaging. Privacy preserving approaches also present encouraging performance for both natural and medical image domain.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Not applicable
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The authors declare that all data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper. Additional review data can be shared upon request in Covidence.