ArticleIEEE transactions on artificial intelligence2025
Mitigating Bias in Opportunistic Screening for MACE with Causal Reasoning.
Article in IEEE transactions on artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mitigating population drift is vital for developing robust AI models for clinical use. While current methodologies focus on reducing demographic bias in disease predictions, they overlook the significant impact of chronic comorbidities. Addressing these complexities is essential to enhance predictive accuracy and reliability across diverse patient demographics, ultimately improving healthcare outcomes. We propose a causal reasoning framework to address selection bias in opportunistic screening for 1-year composite MACE risk using chest X-ray images. Training in high-risk primarily Caucasian patients (43% MACE event), the model was evaluated in a lower-risk emergency department setting (12.8% MACE event) and a relatively lower-risk external Asian patient population (23.81% MACE event) to assess selection bias effects. We benchmarked our approach against a high-performance disease classification model, a propensity score matching strategy, and a debiasing model for unknown biases. The causal+confounder framework achieved an AUC of 0.75 and 0.7 on Shift data and Shift external, outperforming baselines, and a comparable AUC of 0.7 on internal data despite penalties for confounders. It minimized disparities in confounding factors and surpassed traditional and state-of-the-art debiasing methods. Experimental data show that integrating causal reasoning and confounder adjustments in AI models enhances their effectiveness. This approach shows promise for creating fair and robust clinical decision support systems that account for population shifts, ultimately improving the reliability and ethical integrity of AI-driven clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.