ArticlePLOS digital health2026
AI alignment in medical imaging: Unveiling hidden biases through counterfactual analysis.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) systems for medical imaging have demonstrated remarkable diagnostic capabilities. However, their susceptibility to learning spurious correlations with sensitive attributes poses significant risks to fairness and safety. In this paper, we introduce a novel statistical framework to evaluate the dependency of medical imaging ML models on sensitive attributes, such as demographics. Our method leverages the concept of counterfactual invariance, measuring the extent to which a model's predictions remain unchanged under hypothetical changes to sensitive attributes. We present a practical algorithm that combines conditional latent diffusion models with statistical hypothesis testing to identify and quantify such biases without requiring direct access to counterfactual data. On synthetic benchmarks, our framework correctly identifies 96.1% of biased models while producing false alarms on 22.0% of fair models. On two real-world chest X-ray datasets, CheXpert and MIMIC-CXR, it detects bias at average rates 96.3%, 95.7% across all diagnostic tasks when models are strongly biased, and its average false alarm rate drops to 15.3%, 14.7%, respectively, for the least biased models, consistently outperforming existing fairness baselines and demonstrating strong alignment with counterfactual fairness principles.
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.