FRAME: separating sampling variation from representational cause in medical imaging fairness
Read the original on Hugging Face Trending Papers →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at Hugging Face Trending Papers.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at Hugging Face Trending Papers.
The paper introduces FRAME, a two‑step framework for auditing fairness claims in medical imaging. First, it derives a fair‑model reference distribution that captures the portion of subgroup performance differences attributable to sampling variation. Second, it tests the remaining difference using operators in representation space to assess whether demographic information or disease entanglement drives the bias. Across a large dataset of 702,206 images and 36 encoders, the reference explains a substantial median share of race and age differences, while interventions such as injecting demographic decodability or entangling disease direction have limited impact on the residual bias.
The paper introduces the Explanation Consistency Score (ECS), a fairness‑aware metric that uses Jensen‑Shannon divergence to measure how similar attribution maps are across demographic subgroups. Applied to diabetic retinopathy screening, ECS is evaluated both overall and within disease severity levels. Results show that although predictive performance varies among ethnic groups, explanation consistency remains high and is not significantly linked to performance disparities, indicating that predictive fairness and explanation consistency assess different aspects of model behavior.
arXiv:2607. 14984v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Per-subgroup fairness audits of medical image classifiers face a sample-size problem: minority subgroups in held-out test sets have so few samples that the resulting confidence intervals on per-subgroup performance are wider than the bias the audit is meant to detect.
arXiv:2607. 07852v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated segmentation of cervical-spine MRI is increasingly used in clinical workflows, yet no fairness audit exists for this anatomy.
arXiv:2607. 08953v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Algorithmic fairness methods are increasingly used to identify and mitigate bias in machine learning models, yet most approaches are evaluated in isolation and along single demographic axes.
arXiv:2604. 16450v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Intersectional biases in healthcare data can produce compound disparities in clinical machine learning models, yet most fairness evaluations assess demographic attributes independently.