Synthetic Simplicity: Unveiling Bias in Medical Data Augmentation
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Explores the potential for bias in medical data augmentation using synthetic data
- Examines the impact of simplicity bias, where synthetic data can be overly simplified compared to real-world data
- Proposes a framework for assessing and mitigating bias in synthetic data generation
Plain English Explanation
Medical data is often scarce, so researchers use data augmentation to create new, synthetic data. This can help train machine learning models more effectively. However, this paper suggests that synthetic data may be oversimplified compared to real-world data, leading to "simplicity bias".
The researchers created a framework to measure this bias and understand how it affects the performance of machine learning models. They found that synthetic data generated by diffusion models, a common technique, can indeed be overly simplified. This means the models trained on this data may not generalize well to real-world scenarios.
The paper highlights the importance of carefully evaluating the quality and representativeness of synthetic data, rather than blindly relying on it. It encourages researchers to consider the potential for bias when using data augmentation techniques in sensitive domains like healthcare.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a framework for assessing simplicity bias in synthetic medical data generated using diffusion models, a popular data augmentation technique. Diffusion models work by progressively adding noise to real data to create new, synthetic samples.
The researchers hypothesized that this process can lead to oversimplified synthetic data that lacks the complexity of real-world medical data. To test this, they developed metrics to quantify simplicity bias, such as measuring the smoothness and geometric simplicity of synthetic images compared to real ones.
Applying this framework to several medical imaging datasets, the authors found that the synthetic data generated by diffusion models did indeed exhibit significant simplicity bias. Models trained on this data performed worse on real-world test sets, suggesting the synthetic data did not fully capture the nuances of the original data distribution.
The paper discusses potential causes of simplicity bias, such as the noise-adding mechanism of diffusion models, and proposes strategies to mitigate it, such as incorporating more diverse real data into the training process. It emphasizes the importance of carefully evaluating the quality of synthetic data before relying on it for critical applications like healthcare.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises important concerns about the potential for bias in synthetic data, which is an increasingly prevalent tool in machine learning research and development. The authors acknowledge that while diffusion models are a powerful technique, their simplicity bias can lead to models that perform poorly on real-world data.
One limitation of the study is that it focuses solely on simplicity bias, and does not explore other forms of bias that may arise in synthetic data, such as demographic or distributional biases. Additionally, the paper does not provide a comprehensive solution for addressing simplicity bias, but rather suggests various strategies that warrant further investigation.
It would be valuable for future research to expand the analysis to other data augmentation methods and explore more holistic approaches to evaluating and mitigating bias in synthetic data. Nonetheless, this paper serves as an important reminder that synthetic data should not be treated as a panacea, and that careful scrutiny is necessary to ensure it is representative of real-world complexity.
Conclusion
This paper highlights the potential for simplicity bias in medical data augmentation using synthetic data generated by diffusion models. By developing a framework to quantify this bias, the authors demonstrate that synthetic data can be oversimplified compared to real-world data, leading to suboptimal performance of machine learning models.
The findings underscore the need for researchers and practitioners to critically evaluate the quality and representativeness of synthetic data, rather than relying on it uncritically. As the use of synthetic data becomes more prevalent, this work serves as an important contribution to the ongoing discussion around the responsible development and deployment of AI systems, particularly in sensitive domains like healthcare.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Synthetic Simplicity: Unveiling Bias in Medical Data Augmentation
Krishan Agyakari Raja Babu, Rachana Sathish, Mrunal Pattanaik, Rahul Venkataramani
Synthetic data is becoming increasingly integral in data-scarce fields such as medical imaging, serving as a substitute for real data. However, its inherent statistical characteristics can significantly impact downstream tasks, potentially compromising deployment performance. In this study, we empirically investigate this issue and uncover a critical phenomenon: downstream neural networks often exploit spurious distinctions between real and synthetic data when there is a strong correlation between the data source and the task label. This exploitation manifests as textit{simplicity bias}, where models overly rely on superficial features rather than genuine task-related complexities. Through principled experiments, we demonstrate that the source of data (real vs. synthetic) can introduce spurious correlating factors leading to poor performance during deployment when the correlation is absent. We first demonstrate this vulnerability on a digit classification task, where the model spuriously utilizes the source of data instead of the digit to provide an inference. We provide further evidence of this phenomenon in a medical imaging problem related to cardiac view classification in echocardiograms, particularly distinguishing between 2-chamber and 4-chamber views. Given the increasing role of utilizing synthetic datasets, we hope that our experiments serve as effective guidelines for the utilization of synthetic datasets in model training.
Read more8/1/2024
🏅
0
Real Risks of Fake Data: Synthetic Data, Diversity-Washing and Consent Circumvention
Cedric Deslandes Whitney, Justin Norman
Machine learning systems require representations of the real world for training and testing - they require data, and lots of it. Collecting data at scale has logistical and ethical challenges, and synthetic data promises a solution to these challenges. Instead of needing to collect photos of real people's faces to train a facial recognition system, a model creator could create and use photo-realistic, synthetic faces. The comparative ease of generating this synthetic data rather than relying on collecting data has made it a common practice. We present two key risks of using synthetic data in model development. First, we detail the high risk of false confidence when using synthetic data to increase dataset diversity and representation. We base this in the examination of a real world use-case of synthetic data, where synthetic datasets were generated for an evaluation of facial recognition technology. Second, we examine how using synthetic data risks circumventing consent for data usage. We illustrate this by considering the importance of consent to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's regulation of data collection and affected models. Finally, we discuss how these two risks exemplify how synthetic data complicates existing governance and ethical practice; by decoupling data from those it impacts, synthetic data is prone to consolidating power away those most impacted by algorithmically-mediated harm.
Read more5/6/2024
🤖
0
Synthetically Enhanced: Unveiling Synthetic Data's Potential in Medical Imaging Research
Bardia Khosravi, Frank Li, Theo Dapamede, Pouria Rouzrokh, Cooper U. Gamble, Hari M. Trivedi, Cody C. Wyles, Andrew B. Sellergren, Saptarshi Purkayastha, Bradley J. Erickson, Judy W. Gichoya
Chest X-rays (CXR) are essential for diagnosing a variety of conditions, but when used on new populations, model generalizability issues limit their efficacy. Generative AI, particularly denoising diffusion probabilistic models (DDPMs), offers a promising approach to generating synthetic images, enhancing dataset diversity. This study investigates the impact of synthetic data supplementation on the performance and generalizability of medical imaging research. The study employed DDPMs to create synthetic CXRs conditioned on demographic and pathological characteristics from the CheXpert dataset. These synthetic images were used to supplement training datasets for pathology classifiers, with the aim of improving their performance. The evaluation involved three datasets (CheXpert, MIMIC-CXR, and Emory Chest X-ray) and various experiments, including supplementing real data with synthetic data, training with purely synthetic data, and mixing synthetic data with external datasets. Performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC). Adding synthetic data to real datasets resulted in a notable increase in AUROC values (up to 0.02 in internal and external test sets with 1000% supplementation, p-value less than 0.01 in all instances). When classifiers were trained exclusively on synthetic data, they achieved performance levels comparable to those trained on real data with 200%-300% data supplementation. The combination of real and synthetic data from different sources demonstrated enhanced model generalizability, increasing model AUROC from 0.76 to 0.80 on the internal test set (p-value less than 0.01). In conclusion, synthetic data supplementation significantly improves the performance and generalizability of pathology classifiers in medical imaging.
Read more7/9/2024
🌐
0
Towards objective and systematic evaluation of bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging
Emma A. M. Stanley, Raissa Souza, Anthony Winder, Vedant Gulve, Kimberly Amador, Matthias Wilms, Nils D. Forkert
Artificial intelligence (AI) models trained using medical images for clinical tasks often exhibit bias in the form of disparities in performance between subgroups. Since not all sources of biases in real-world medical imaging data are easily identifiable, it is challenging to comprehensively assess how those biases are encoded in models, and how capable bias mitigation methods are at ameliorating performance disparities. In this article, we introduce a novel analysis framework for systematically and objectively investigating the impact of biases in medical images on AI models. We developed and tested this framework for conducting controlled in silico trials to assess bias in medical imaging AI using a tool for generating synthetic magnetic resonance images with known disease effects and sources of bias. The feasibility is showcased by using three counterfactual bias scenarios to measure the impact of simulated bias effects on a convolutional neural network (CNN) classifier and the efficacy of three bias mitigation strategies. The analysis revealed that the simulated biases resulted in expected subgroup performance disparities when the CNN was trained on the synthetic datasets. Moreover, reweighing was identified as the most successful bias mitigation strategy for this setup, and we demonstrated how explainable AI methods can aid in investigating the manifestation of bias in the model using this framework. Developing fair AI models is a considerable challenge given that many and often unknown sources of biases can be present in medical imaging datasets. In this work, we present a novel methodology to objectively study the impact of biases and mitigation strategies on deep learning pipelines, which can support the development of clinical AI that is robust and responsible.
Read more7/2/2024