Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectiveThis work investigates if deep learning (DL) models can classify originating site locations directly from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans with and without correction for intensity differences.Material and methodsA large database of 1880 T1-weighted MRI scans collected across 41 sites originally for Parkinson's disease (PD) classification was used to classify sites in this study. Forty-six percent of the datasets are from PD patients, while 54% are from healthy participants. After preprocessing the T1-weighted scans, 2 additional data types were generated: intensity-harmonized T1-weighted scans and log-Jacobian deformation maps resulting from nonlinear atlas registration. Corresponding DL models were trained to classify sites for each data type. Additionally, logistic regression models were used to investigate the contribution of biological (age, sex, disease status) and non-biological (scanner type) variables to the models' decision.ResultsA comparison of the 3 different types of data revealed that DL models trained using T1-weighted and intensity-harmonized T1-weighted scans can classify sites with an accuracy of 85%, while the model using log-Jacobian deformation maps achieved a site classification accuracy of 54%. Disease status and scanner type were found to be significant confounders.DiscussionOur results demonstrate that MRI scans encode relevant site-specific information that models could use as shortcuts that cannot be removed using simple intensity harmonization methods.ConclusionThe ability of DL models to exploit site-specific biases as shortcuts raises concerns about their reliability, generalization, and deployability in clinical settings.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.