Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 52 references

TransFair: Transferring Fairness from Ocular Disease Classification to Progression Prediction

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Demographic fairness can be transferred from glaucoma screening to progression prediction.

desk verdict New and relevant application of fairness transfer to ocular disease progression, but the central claim is undercut by an ill-defined distillation loss and a direct contradiction between Table I and the text. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00051 v2 pith:6BR7JCR5 submitted 2024-11-24 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CVcs.CY

Leila Gheisi , Henry Chu , Raju Gottumukkala , Yan Luo , Xingquan Zhu , Mengyu Wang , Min Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CVcs.CY
keywords AIfairnessdiseaseprogressionpredictionknowledgedistillationocularglaucomademographicequityretinalimagingEfficientNet
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that demographic fairness can be carried from one clinical task to another: a glaucoma classifier trained on abundant images can pass its equity on to a glaucoma progression predictor trained on scarce longitudinal data. The proposed pipeline trains FairEN, an EfficientNet variant with a demographic-attribute attention layer, on large classification datasets, then uses it as a teacher to guide a student FairEN for progression prediction through knowledge distillation. The authors report that TransFair achieves the best overall AUC and equity-scaled AUC among the compared methods, for both gender and race, on 2D RNFLT maps and 3D OCT B-scans. The practical stake is that fairness no longer has to be re-learned from expensive longitudinal data; it can be transferred from the classification models already available.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is feature-level knowledge distillation between two FairEN models. FairEN wraps EfficientNet-B1 with a fairness-aware attention layer: demographic attributes pass through an MLP encoder to produce query features, image features produce keys, and the softmax attention weight rescales the image features before classification. TransFair keeps this machinery and adds a distillation loss, $D_{KL} = \alpha D^{\text{img}}_{KL} + \beta D^{\text{attr}}_{KL}$, where $D^{\text{img}}_{KL}$ aligns teacher and student image features and $D^{\text{attr}}_{KL}$ aligns their demographic-attribute features. The student's total loss is the progression cross-entropy plus $D_{KL}$, which is the channel through which fairness is supposed to flow from classification to progression.

What would settle it

Train the TransFair student with the distillation weight $\alpha=\beta=0$, keeping everything else identical. If gender or race ES-AUC stays at the reported TransFair level, the KL transfer is not the carrier of fairness. Conversely, distilling from an unfair teacher that still has the attention layer, and observing the student's fairness drop, would confirm that the teacher's fairness is what matters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claim is that fairness is a transferable property of latent representations. FairEN makes the representation group-aware by computing attention weights from MLP-encoded demographic attributes and applying them to image features, and TransFair then trains a progression student to imitate the teacher's image and attribute latent distributions under a weighted KL divergence while also minimizing the progression loss. In the experiments, TransFair reports the highest ES-AUC and overall AUC among all compared fairness-aware and standard models across MD fast progression and TD pointwise progression on both image modalities. The authors take this as evidence that the fair classification teacher supplies the student with the feature structure needed to stay equitable on a much smaller progression dataset.

Load-bearing premise

The argument hinges on the assumption that minimizing KL divergence between teacher and student latent features is what transfers fairness from classification to progression; the paper does not prove this and does not isolate it from the effect of sharing the FairEN architecture and the fairness-aware attention layer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fair progression models can be built without large demographically diverse longitudinal datasets; the fairness work is done on the classification side where data is abundant.
  • The same teacher-student recipe can be tried for any disease with plentiful screening images and scarce follow-up labels, such as diabetic retinopathy or macular degeneration.
  • Adversarial debiasing is not the only in-processing option; the reported comparisons suggest attribute-aware attention plus distillation can beat it on both accuracy and equity for progression.
  • A deployed progression model can be audited with ES-AUC per subgroup, giving clinics a direct check on whether gender and race groups are treated equally.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, if the transfer is causal, then distilling from a deliberately unfair teacher should leave student fairness roughly unchanged; this control experiment would separate fairness transfer from generic feature regularization.
  • Beyond the paper, the student also receives demographic attributes through the same attention layer, so part of the fairness gain could come from direct demographic conditioning rather than from the teacher; ablating the teacher while keeping the attention layer would test this.
  • Beyond the paper, the parameter sensitivity figures show that the image and attribute distillation weights strongly change ES-AUC, so a principled scheduling or learned weighting rule for the two KL terms could make the transfer more reliable across datasets.
  • Beyond the paper, if the transfer is robust, a natural next step is to test it across protected attributes beyond gender and race, such as age or socioeconomic status, by feeding the same attention mechanism different demographic encodings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-stage method for demographic fairness in ocular disease progression prediction. In the first stage, FairEN augments EfficientNet-B1 with a demographic-attribute attention layer and is trained for glaucoma classification on the Harvard-GF and FairVision datasets. In the second stage, TransFair uses the FairEN classifier as a teacher and trains a FairEN student for progression prediction on Harvard-GDP, adding KL-divergence terms (Eqs. 9-11) that are intended to align teacher and student image and attribute features. The authors claim that this transfers fairness from classification to progression, and they evaluate AUC and ES-AUC on gender and race using RNFLT maps and OCT B-scans. The paper also reports parameter-sensitivity experiments for the two distillation weights.

Significance. If the central claim were valid, transferring fairness from data-rich classification datasets to data-scarce progression prediction would be a practically valuable contribution, and the paper addresses a clinically relevant gap with real-world 2D and 3D data. The paper is also honest about its scope: it evaluates only ocular diseases and only EfficientNet, and it does not claim a formal proof of fairness transfer. The circularity concern raised in the stress test does not land, because ES-AUC is not directly optimized by the training loss; however, the load-bearing problem is that the proposed transfer term is mathematically undefined as written and is never isolated by an ablation. Moreover, Table I contradicts the paper's strongest fairness claim. These issues prevent the empirical evidence from supporting the stated contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV-B2, Eqs. (9)-(11)] The feature-level knowledge-distillation loss is not mathematically well-defined. Equations (9) and (10) define D_KL(h_cls || h_pred) = (1/K) sum h_cls log(h_cls / h_pred), but h_cls and h_pred are latent features produced by EfficientNet-B1 and the linear layers in Eqs. (5) and (8); they are not constrained to be non-negative or to sum to one. The logarithm of a ratio is therefore not defined for arbitrary feature values, and the expression is not a Kullback-Leibler divergence unless each feature vector is a probability distribution. It is also unclear whether the sum runs over feature dimensions or batch elements, since K is defined as the batch size. If the implementation applies a normalization such as softmax before computing the divergence, that normalization and the resulting modified objective should be stated explicitly. As written, the only mechanism claimed to transfer fairness is undefined.
  2. [V-D2, Table I] The text's central claim that TransFair performs best in fairness for both gender and race is contradicted by the paper's own results. In Table I (MD fast progression, RNFLT maps), TransFair's race ES-AUC is 0.5714, whereas EfficientNet attains 0.6158; moreover, FairEN's race ES-AUC is 0.5022, so on this metric TransFair does not beat the plain EfficientNet baseline. The statement in Section V-D2 that TransFair performs best in model performance and fairness for both demographic attributes is therefore false as written and must be corrected, along with the corresponding conclusion in Section VII.
  3. [IV-B2 and Algorithm 2] No ablation isolates the distillation loss. The student is trained with the combined loss in Eq. (13), but the paper never compares against a variant trained with the same teacher initialization, the same classification-teacher supervision, and D_KL removed. Consequently, the observed improvements in AUC or ES-AUC could be due to the teacher's pretrained weights, to feature alignment acting as a generic regularizer, or to the fairness-aware attention module, rather than to the transfer of fairness. Without this ablation, the paper's central causal claim that fairness is transferred by minimizing Eqs. (9)-(11) is not supported.
  4. [V-A, V-D, Tables I-IV] The progression experiments are run on 500 patients, with 8.8% positive cases under the MD fast criterion and 9.4% under the TD criterion. Many subgroup AUCs in Tables I-IV are therefore based on very few positive examples, especially for Asian and Black subgroups, yet all results are reported as point estimates without confidence intervals or significance tests. The differences used to conclude that TransFair improves fairness are often on the order of 0.01-0.03, which is within the likely sampling variability of AUC estimates at these sample sizes. The fairness claims need interval estimates or statistical tests to be credible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [V-C and V-E] The default values of alpha and beta are inconsistent: Section V-C states defaults of 1.0 and 0.05, while Section V-E says the non-varied parameter is fixed at 0.2. Please reconcile these values.
  2. [IV-A, Eqs. (3)-(5)] The dimensions of the attention computation should be clarified. As written, softmax(h_q h_k^T / sqrt(d)) appears to produce an attention matrix over the batch rather than per-sample attention weights; please specify the exact tensor shapes and the role of W3.
  3. [Algorithm 1] The indentation places the loss computation after the batch loop in a way that is inconsistent with the use of 'batch j' in Eq. (12); please restructure the loop so that each batch's loss is computed and minimized within that batch.
  4. [Figures 6 and 7] The two panels in each figure are not labeled to indicate which corresponds to alpha and which to beta, and the y-axis ranges differ across panels, making the sensitivity comparison difficult to read.
  5. [V-A] The reference for Harvard-GDP is given as [20], but [20] is described as the FairVision dataset; please provide a separate citation or clarify the relationship between Harvard-GDP and FairVision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: TransFair's fairness claim is an empirical result, not forced by its loss function or by self-citation.

full rationale

The paper makes no formal derivation whose conclusions reduce to its inputs. TransFair's training loss (Eq. 13) combines binary cross-entropy for progression labels with a KL feature-alignment term (Eqs. 9-11); neither term contains ES-AUC or subgroup AUC, so the reported fairness metric is not directly optimized and cannot be an output that was baked into the objective. The teacher's fairness is established on a classification task with classification labels, while the student's fairness is evaluated on a separate progression task with distinct progression labels, so the headline 'fairness transfer' result is a measured empirical outcome rather than a renamed fit. Self-citations to Harvard-GF, FairVision, and FairDomain serve as dataset and background references, not as load-bearing theorems, and no uniqueness claim or prior result is invoked to force the proposed model choice. The paper explicitly labels the transfer mechanism as a hypothesis, and its limitations acknowledge untested extensions. The ill-defined KL divergence over non-distribution features and the absence of an ablation isolating the KL term are correctness and evidence weaknesses, not circularity under the required standard. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. Its central assumptions are the availability of demographic attributes at inference, and the untested hypothesis that feature-space KL matching transfers fairness. The two distillation weights alpha and beta are free hyperparameters with inconsistent documentation and are tuned against the evaluation metric.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha (image feature distillation weight) = 1.0 (Section V-C) or 0.2 (Section V-E)
    Weights the image-feature KL term in Eq. 11; inconsistent defaults reported, and sensitivity analysis selects values that optimize AUC and ES-AUC, the evaluation metrics.
  • beta (attribute feature distillation weight) = 0.05 (Section V-C) or 0.2 (Section V-E)
    Weights the demographic-attribute KL term in Eq. 11; same inconsistency and tuning-on-metric issue as alpha.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Demographic attributes are available for every input image at training and test time.
    FairEN's attention mechanism (Eq. 2-4, 7-8) requires demographic attributes as a model input; the paper does not discuss missing or unknown attributes in deployment.
  • ad hoc to paper Minimizing KL divergence between teacher and student latent features transfers fairness from classification to progression.
    This is the core design hypothesis of TransFair (Eq. 9-11), introduced without theoretical justification or an ablation that isolates the transfer effect from generic feature distillation.
  • domain assumption The MD slope and TD pointwise criteria from Vesti et al. [45] correctly define glaucoma progression.
    The progression ground-truth labels in Harvard-GDP are derived from these clinical criteria; label noise in these criteria is not analyzed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TransFair: Transferring Fairness from Ocular Disease Classification to Progression Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6BR7JCR5

@misc{pith2026241200051,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TransFair: Transferring Fairness from Ocular Disease Classification to Progression Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6BR7JCR5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00051}
}
read the original abstract

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in automated disease classification significantly reduces healthcare costs and improves the accessibility of services. However, this transformation has given rise to concerns about the fairness of AI, which disproportionately affects certain groups, particularly patients from underprivileged populations. Recently, a number of methods and large-scale datasets have been proposed to address group performance disparities. Although these methods have shown effectiveness in disease classification tasks, they may fall short in ensuring fair prediction of disease progression, mainly because of limited longitudinal data with diverse demographics available for training a robust and equitable prediction model. In this paper, we introduce TransFair to enhance demographic fairness in progression prediction for ocular diseases. TransFair aims to transfer a fairness-enhanced disease classification model to the task of progression prediction with fairness preserved. Specifically, we train a fair EfficientNet, termed FairEN, equipped with a fairness-aware attention mechanism using extensive data for ocular disease classification. Subsequently, this fair classification model is adapted to a fair progression prediction model through knowledge distillation, which aims to minimize the latent feature distances between the classification and progression prediction models. We evaluate FairEN and TransFair for fairness-enhanced ocular disease classification and progression prediction using both two-dimensional (2D) and 3D retinal images. Extensive experiments and comparisons with models with and without considering fairness learning show that TransFair effectively enhances demographic equity in predicting ocular disease progression.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Multimodal biomedical ai,

    J. N. Acosta, G. J. Falcone, P. Rajpurkar, and E. J. Topol, “Multimodal biomedical ai,” Nature Medicine, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1773–1784, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    On the challenges and perspectives of foundation models for medical image analysis,

    S. Zhang and D. Metaxas, “On the challenges and perspectives of foundation models for medical image analysis,” Medical image analysis, vol. 91, p. 102996, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    The current status and future of fda-approved artificial intelligence tools in chest radiology in the united states,

    M. Milam and C. Koo, “The current status and future of fda-approved artificial intelligence tools in chest radiology in the united states,” Clinical Radiology, vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 115–122, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Fda-cleared artificial intelligence and machine learning-based medical devices and their 510 (k) predicate networks,

    U. J. Muehlematter, C. Bluethgen, and K. N. V okinger, “Fda-cleared artificial intelligence and machine learning-based medical devices and their 510 (k) predicate networks,” The Lancet Digital Health , vol. 5, no. 9, pp. e618–e626, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Artificial intelligence in disease diagnosis: a systematic literature review, synthesizing frame- work and future research agenda,

    Y . Kumar, A. Koul, R. Singla, and M. F. Ijaz, “Artificial intelligence in disease diagnosis: a systematic literature review, synthesizing frame- work and future research agenda,” Journal of ambient intelligence and humanized computing, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 8459–8486, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Expert-level detection of pathologies from unannotated chest x-ray images via self-supervised learning,

    E. Tiu, E. Talius, P. Patel, C. P. Langlotz, A. Y . Ng, and P. Rajpurkar, “Expert-level detection of pathologies from unannotated chest x-ray images via self-supervised learning,” Nature Biomedical Engineering , vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 1399–1406, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Applications of deep learning in fundus images: A review,

    T. Li, W. Bo, C. Hu, H. Kang, H. Liu, K. Wang, and H. Fu, “Applications of deep learning in fundus images: A review,” Medical Image Analysis , vol. 69, p. 101971, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Rnflt2vec: Artifact- corrected representation learning for retinal nerve fiber layer thickness maps,

    M. Shi, Y . Tian, Y . Luo, T. Elze, and M. Wang, “Rnflt2vec: Artifact- corrected representation learning for retinal nerve fiber layer thickness maps,” Medical Image Analysis , vol. 94, p. 103110, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis,

    Y .-C. Tham, X. Li, T. Y . Wong, H. A. Quigley, T. Aung, and C.-Y . Cheng, “Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Ophthal- mology, vol. 121, no. 11, pp. 2081–2090, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    Generating synthetic mixed-type longitudinal electronic health records for artificial intelligent applica- tions,

    J. Li, B. J. Cairns, J. Li, and T. Zhu, “Generating synthetic mixed-type longitudinal electronic health records for artificial intelligent applica- tions,” NPJ Digital Medicine , vol. 6, no. 1, p. 98, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Imageflownet: fore- casting multiscale image-level trajectories of disease progression with irregularlysampled longitudinal medical images,

    C. Liu, K. Xu, L. L. Shen, G. Huguet, Z. Wang, A. Tong, D. Bzdok, J. Stewart, J. C. Wang, L. V . Del Priore et al. , “Imageflownet: fore- casting multiscale image-level trajectories of disease progression with irregularlysampled longitudinal medical images,” arXiv preprint arX...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Algorithmic fairness in artificial intel- ligence for medicine and healthcare,

    R. J. Chen, J. J. Wang, D. F. Williamson, T. Y . Chen, J. Lipkova, M. Y . Lu, S. Sahai, and F. Mahmood, “Algorithmic fairness in artificial intel- ligence for medicine and healthcare,” Nature biomedical engineering , vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 719–742, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Harvard glaucoma fairness: a retinal nerve disease dataset for fairness learning and fair identity normalization,

    Y . Luo, Y . Tian, M. Shi, L. R. Pasquale, L. Q. Shen, N. Zebardast, T. Elze, and M. Wang, “Harvard glaucoma fairness: a retinal nerve disease dataset for fairness learning and fair identity normalization,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Fairseg: A large-scale medical image segmentation dataset for fairness learning using segment anything model with fair error-bound scaling,

    Y . Tian, M. Shi, Y . Luo, A. Kouhana, T. Elze, and M. Wang, “Fairseg: A large-scale medical image segmentation dataset for fairness learning using segment anything model with fair error-bound scaling,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    An algorithmic approach to reducing unexplained pain dispar- ities in underserved populations,

    E. Pierson, D. M. Cutler, J. Leskovec, S. Mullainathan, and Z. Ober- meyer, “An algorithmic approach to reducing unexplained pain dispar- ities in underserved populations,” Nature Medicine, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 136–140, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Algorithmic encoding of protected characteristics in chest x-ray disease detection models,

    B. Glocker, C. Jones, M. Bernhardt, and S. Winzeck, “Algorithmic encoding of protected characteristics in chest x-ray disease detection models,” EBioMedicine, vol. 89, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Algorithmic fairness of machine learning models for alzheimer disease progression,

    C. Yuan, K. A. Linn, and R. A. Hubbard, “Algorithmic fairness of machine learning models for alzheimer disease progression,” JAMA Network Open, vol. 6, no. 11, pp. e2 342 203–e2 342 203, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Fairness in deep learning: A survey on vision and language research,

    O. Parraga, M. D. More, C. M. Oliveira, N. S. Gavenski, L. S. Kupssinsk¨u, A. Medronha, L. V . Moura, G. S. Sim˜oes, and R. C. Barros, “Fairness in deep learning: A survey on vision and language research,” ACM Computing Surveys , 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Equitable deep learning for diabetic retinopathy detection using multi-dimensional retinal imaging with fair adaptive scaling: a retrospective study,

    M. Shi, M. M. Afzal, H. Huang, C. Wen, Y . Luo, M. O. Khan, Y . Tian, L. Kim, T. Elze, Y . Fang et al. , “Equitable deep learning for diabetic retinopathy detection using multi-dimensional retinal imaging with fair adaptive scaling: a retrospective study,” medRxiv, pp. 2024–04, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Harvard eye fairness: A large-scale 3d imaging dataset for equitable eye diseases screening and fair identity scaling,

    Y . Luo, Y . Tian, M. Shi, T. Elze, and M. Wang, “Harvard eye fairness: A large-scale 3d imaging dataset for equitable eye diseases screening and fair identity scaling,” arXiv e-prints, pp. arXiv–2310, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Fairdomain: Achieving fairness in cross- domain medical image segmentation and classification,

    Y . Tian, C. Wen, M. Shi, M. M. Afzal, H. Huang, M. O. Khan, Y . Luo, Y . Fang, and M. Wang, “Fairdomain: Achieving fairness in cross- domain medical image segmentation and classification,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08813, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for con- volutional neural networks,

    M. Tan and Q. Le, “Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for con- volutional neural networks,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2019, pp. 6105–6114

    2019

  15. [23]

    Machine learning techniques for ophthalmic data processing: a review,

    M. H. Sarhan, M. A. Nasseri, D. Zapp, M. Maier, C. P. Lohmann, N. Navab, and A. Eslami, “Machine learning techniques for ophthalmic data processing: a review,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 3338–3350, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Classification of retinal diseases based on oct images,

    N. Eladawi, M. Elmogy, M. Ghazal, O. Helmy, A. Aboelfetouh, A. Riad, S. Schaal, and A. El-Baz, “Classification of retinal diseases based on oct images,” Front Biosci, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 247–264, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Application of deep learning for retinal image analysis: A review,

    M. Badar, M. Haris, and A. Fatima, “Application of deep learning for retinal image analysis: A review,” Computer Science Review, vol. 35, p. 100203, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Ocular disease detection systems based on fundus images: a survey,

    J. Sanghavi and M. Kurhekar, “Ocular disease detection systems based on fundus images: a survey,”Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 83, no. 7, pp. 21 471–21 496, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    A large-scale database and a cnn model for attention-based glaucoma detection,

    L. Li, M. Xu, H. Liu, Y . Li, X. Wang, L. Jiang, Z. Wang, X. Fan, and N. Wang, “A large-scale database and a cnn model for attention-based glaucoma detection,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 413–424, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    A generalizable deep learning regression model for automated glaucoma screening from fundus images,

    R. Hemelings, B. Elen, A. K. Schuster, M. B. Blaschko, J. Barbosa- Breda, P. Hujanen, A. Junglas, S. Nickels, A. White, N. Pfeifferet al., “A generalizable deep learning regression model for automated glaucoma screening from fundus images,” NPJ digital medicine , vol. 6, no. 1...

    2023

  21. [29]

    Technical and imaging factors influencing performance of deep learning systems for diabetic retinopathy,

    M. Y . Yip, G. Lim, Z. W. Lim, Q. D. Nguyen, C. C. Chong, M. Yu, V . Bellemo, Y . Xie, X. Q. Lee, H. Hamzahet al., “Technical and imaging factors influencing performance of deep learning systems for diabetic retinopathy,” NPJ digital medicine , vol. 3, no. 1, p. 40, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    A review of deep learning for screening, diagnosis, and detection of glaucoma progression,

    A. C. Thompson, A. A. Jammal, and F. A. Medeiros, “A review of deep learning for screening, diagnosis, and detection of glaucoma progression,” Translational vision science & technology , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 42–42, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Predicting glaucoma development with longitudinal deep learning predictions from fundus photographs,

    T. Lee, A. A. Jammal, E. B. Mariottoni, and F. A. Medeiros, “Predicting glaucoma development with longitudinal deep learning predictions from fundus photographs,” American journal of ophthalmology , vol. 225, pp. 86–94, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Deep learning algorithm predicts diabetic retinopathy progression in individual patients,

    F. Arcadu, F. Benmansour, A. Maunz, J. Willis, Z. Haskova, and M. Prunotto, “Deep learning algorithm predicts diabetic retinopathy progression in individual patients,” NPJ digital medicine , vol. 2, no. 1, p. 92, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Toward fairness in artificial intelligence for medical image analysis: identifi- cation and mitigation of potential biases in the roadmap from data collection to model deployment,

    K. Drukker, W. Chen, J. Gichoya, N. Gruszauskas, J. Kalpathy-Cramer, S. Koyejo, K. Myers, R. C. S ´a, B. Sahiner, H. Whitney et al., “Toward fairness in artificial intelligence for medical image analysis: identifi- cation and mitigation of potential biases in the roadmap from ...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Addressing fairness in artificial intelligence for medical imaging,

    M. A. Ricci Lara, R. Echeveste, and E. Ferrante, “Addressing fairness in artificial intelligence for medical imaging,” nature communications, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 4581, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Bias mimicking: A simple sampling approach for bias mitigation,

    M. Qraitem, K. Saenko, and B. A. Plummer, “Bias mimicking: A simple sampling approach for bias mitigation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF 12 Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 20 311–20 320

    2023

  28. [36]

    Ai recognition of patient race in medical imaging: a modelling study,

    J. W. Gichoya, I. Banerjee, A. R. Bhimireddy, J. L. Burns, L. A. Celi, L.-C. Chen, R. Correa, N. Dullerud, M. Ghassemi, S.-C. Huang et al., “Ai recognition of patient race in medical imaging: a modelling study,” The Lancet Digital Health , vol. 4, no. 6, pp. e406–e414, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    An adversarial training framework for mitigating algorithmic biases in clinical machine learning,

    J. Yang, A. A. Soltan, D. W. Eyre, Y . Yang, and D. A. Clifton, “An adversarial training framework for mitigating algorithmic biases in clinical machine learning,” NPJ digital medicine, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 55, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Optimal group fair classifiers from linear post- processing,

    R. Xian and H. Zhao, “Optimal group fair classifiers from linear post- processing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04025 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Post-processing fairness with minimal changes,

    F. Di Gennaro, T. Laugel, V . Grari, X. Renard, and M. Detyniecki, “Post-processing fairness with minimal changes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15096, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Generative models improve fairness of medical classifiers under distribution shifts,

    I. Ktena, O. Wiles, I. Albuquerque, S.-A. Rebuffi, R. Tanno, A. G. Roy, S. Azizi, D. Belgrave, P. Kohli, T. Cemgil et al. , “Generative models improve fairness of medical classifiers under distribution shifts,” Nature Medicine, pp. 1–8, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Knowledge distillation in medical data mining: a survey,

    H. Meng, Z. Lin, F. Yang, Y . Xu, and L. Cui, “Knowledge distillation in medical data mining: a survey,” in 5th International Conference on Crowd Science and Engineering , 2021, pp. 175–182

    2021

  34. [42]

    Adaptive knowledge distillation for high-quality un- supervised mri reconstruction with model-driven priors,

    Z. Wu and X. Li, “Adaptive knowledge distillation for high-quality un- supervised mri reconstruction with model-driven priors,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics , 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Categorical relation-preserving contrastive knowledge distillation for medical image classification,

    X. Xing, Y . Hou, H. Li, Y . Yuan, H. Li, and M. Q.-H. Meng, “Categorical relation-preserving contrastive knowledge distillation for medical image classification,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbo...

    2021

  36. [44]

    Kullback-leibler divergence,

    J. M. Joyce, “Kullback-leibler divergence,” in International encyclopedia of statistical science . Springer, 2011, pp. 720–722

    2011

  37. [45]

    Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression,

    E. Vesti, C. A. Johnson, and B. C. Chauhan, “Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression,” Investiga- tive ophthalmology & visual science , vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 3873–3879, 2003

    2003

  38. [46]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,

    K. Simonyan, “Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Densely connected convolutional networks,

    G. Huang, Z. Liu, L. Van Der Maaten, and K. Q. Weinberger, “Densely connected convolutional networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE confer- ence on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2017, pp. 4700–4708

    2017

  40. [48]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  41. [49]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Data decisions and theoretical implications when adversarially learning fair representations,

    A. Beutel, J. Chen, Z. Zhao, and E. H. Chi, “Data decisions and theoretical implications when adversarially learning fair representations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.00075 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Masked au- toencoders are scalable vision learners,

    K. He, X. Chen, S. Xie, Y . Li, P. Doll ´ar, and R. Girshick, “Masked au- toencoders are scalable vision learners,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp. 16 000–16 009

    2022

  44. [52]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization,

    I. Loshchilov, “Decoupled weight decay regularization,” International Conference on Learning Representations , 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.