Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42594066›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2026

AI alignment in medical imaging: Unveiling hidden biases through counterfactual analysis.

Haroui Ma, Francesco Quinzan, Theresa Willem, Stefan Bauer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Haroui MaTUM School of Computation, Information and Technology (CIT), Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Francesco QuinzanDepartment of Engineering Science, The University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7367-6533
Theresa WillemTUM School for Medicine and Health, Institute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Stefan BauerTUM School of Computation, Information and Technology (CIT), Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42594066
PMCPMC13472419

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.