19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Human visual explanations mitigate bias in AI-based assessment of surgeon skills

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can now reliably assess surgeon skills through videos of intraoperative surgical activity. With such systems informing future high-stakes decisions such as whether to credential surgeons and grant them the privilege to operate on patients, it is critical that they treat all surgeons fairly. However, it remains an open question whether surgical AI systems exhibit bias against surgeon sub-cohorts, and, if so, whether such bias can be mitigated. Here, we examine and mitigate the bias exhibited by a family of surgical AI systems—SAIS—deployed on videos of robotic surgeries from three geographically-diverse hospitals (USA and EU). We show that SAIS exhibits an underskilling bias, erroneously downgrading surgical performance, and an overskilling bias, erroneously upgrading surgical performance, at different rates across surgeon sub-cohorts. To mitigate such bias, we leverage a strategy —TWIX—which teaches an AI system to provide a visual explanation for its skill assessment that otherwise would have been provided by human experts. We show that whereas baseline strategies inconsistently mitigate algorithmic bias, TWIX can effectively mitigate the underskilling and overskilling bias while simultaneously improving the performance of these AI systems across hospitals. We discovered that these findings carry over to the training environment where we assess medical students’ skills today. Our study is a critical prerequisite to the eventual implementation of AI-augmented global surgeon credentialing programs, ensuring that all surgeons are treated fairly.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations

          Health systems rely on commercial prediction algorithms to identify and help patients with complex health needs. We show that a widely used algorithm, typical of this industry-wide approach and affecting millions of patients, exhibits significant racial bias: At a given risk score, Black patients are considerably sicker than White patients, as evidenced by signs of uncontrolled illnesses. Remedying this disparity would increase the percentage of Black patients receiving additional help from 17.7 to 46.5%. The bias arises because the algorithm predicts health care costs rather than illness, but unequal access to care means that we spend less money caring for Black patients than for White patients. Thus, despite health care cost appearing to be an effective proxy for health by some measures of predictive accuracy, large racial biases arise. We suggest that the choice of convenient, seemingly effective proxies for ground truth can be an important source of algorithmic bias in many contexts.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Underdiagnosis bias of artificial intelligence algorithms applied to chest radiographs in under-served patient populations

            Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have increasingly achieved expert-level performance in medical imaging applications. However, there is growing concern that such AI systems may reflect and amplify human bias, and reduce the quality of their performance in historically under-served populations such as female patients, Black patients, or patients of low socioeconomic status. Such biases are especially troubling in the context of underdiagnosis, whereby the AI algorithm would inaccurately label an individual with a disease as healthy, potentially delaying access to care. Here, we examine algorithmic underdiagnosis in chest X-ray pathology classification across three large chest X-ray datasets, as well as one multi-source dataset. We find that classifiers produced using state-of-the-art computer vision techniques consistently and selectively underdiagnosed under-served patient populations and that the underdiagnosis rate was higher for intersectional under-served subpopulations, for example, Hispanic female patients. Deployment of AI systems using medical imaging for disease diagnosis with such biases risks exacerbation of existing care biases and can potentially lead to unequal access to medical treatment, thereby raising ethical concerns for the use of these models in the clinic. Artificial intelligence algorithms trained using chest X-rays consistently underdiagnose pulmonary abnormalities or diseases in historically under-served patient populations, raising ethical concerns about the clinical use of such algorithms.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              AI for radiographic COVID-19 detection selects shortcuts over signal

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                danikiy@hotmail.com
                ajhung@gmail.com
                Journal
                NPJ Digit Med
                NPJ Digit Med
                NPJ Digital Medicine
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2398-6352
                30 March 2023
                30 March 2023
                2023
                : 6
                : 54
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.20861.3d, ISNI 0000000107068890, Department of Computing and Mathematical Sciences, , California Institute of Technology, ; California, CA USA
                [2 ]GRID grid.42505.36, ISNI 0000 0001 2156 6853, Center for Robotic Simulation and Education, Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, , University of Southern California, ; California, CA USA
                [3 ]GRID grid.63368.38, ISNI 0000 0004 0445 0041, Department of Urology, , Houston Methodist Hospital, ; Texas, TX USA
                [4 ]GRID grid.490549.5, ISNI 0000 0004 6102 8007, Department of Urology, , Pediatric Urology and Uro-Oncology, Prostate Center Northwest, St. Antonius-Hospital, ; Gronau, Germany
                [5 ]GRID grid.239560.b, ISNI 0000 0004 0482 1586, Division of Neurosurgery, , Center for Neuroscience, Children’s National Hospital, ; Washington DC, WA USA
                [6 ]GRID grid.62560.37, ISNI 0000 0004 0378 8294, Center for Surgery & Public Health, Department of Surgery, , Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, ; Boston, MA USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2898-1790
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6979-6316
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7201-6736
                Article
                766
                10.1038/s41746-023-00766-2
                10063676
                36997642
                15251147-7cba-42e9-85e4-5b5d6745e0db
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 6 October 2022
                : 21 January 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100000054, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Cancer Institute (NCI);
                Award ID: 5R01CA251579-02
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2023

                biomedical engineering,ethics,machine learning
                biomedical engineering, ethics, machine learning

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content90

                Cited by10

                Most referenced authors414