DuetMoE: Coupling Inter- and Intra-Subgroup Robustness for Fair Medical Image Analysis
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2604. 26991v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Machine learning models for medical image analysis often exhibit subgroup-dependent performance, which impacts how decisions should be allocated between automated systems and human experts under limited resources.
arXiv:2607. 09102v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Medical imaging models are often deployed without the demographic, acquisition, and quality metadata needed for subgroup auditing.
arXiv:2504. 20908v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Current subgroup identification methods typically follow a two-step approach: first estimate conditional average treatment effects and then apply thresholding or rule-based procedures to define subgroups.
Benchmarking competitions are central to AI development in medical imaging, but it is unclear if they provide representative, accessible, and reusable data for clinical relevance. This study systematically examined 249 challenges (458 tasks) across 19 imaging modalities, finding limited geographic, modality, and problem-type representation. Additionally, many datasets suffer from restrictive access, ambiguous licensing, and poor documentation, hindering reproducibility and long-term reuse.
The paper investigates intersectional biases in multimodal clinical predictions using Electronic Healthcare Records (EHR). It introduces datasets MIMIC-Eye1 and MIMIC-IV ED, applies unified text representations from pre‑trained clinical language models, and benchmarks bias mitigation at the intersectional subgroup level. Results show that subgroup‑specific mitigation is robust across datasets, subgroups, and embeddings, effectively addressing intersectional biases in multimodal settings.
arXiv:2607. 27289v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The promise of multimodal fusion lies in combining complementary sources of evidence, yet more evidence does not always yield a better prediction.