Causality matters in medical imaging

Abstract

Causal reasoning can shed new light on the major challenges in machine learning for medical imaging: scarcity of high-quality annotated data and mismatch between the development dataset and the target environment. A causal perspective on these issues allows decisions about data collection, annotation, preprocessing, and learning strategies to be made and scrutinized more transparently, while providing a detailed categorisation of potential biases and mitigation techniques. Along with worked clinical examples, we highlight the importance of establishing the causal relationship between images and their annotations, and offer step-by-step recommendations for future studies.

Full text

Its licence does not allow us to show the full text. Read it at PubMed Central:

References 67

1. 1.

   Esteva A, et al. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature. 2017;542:115-118.

   Not in our library10.1038/nature21056 (opens in a new tab)

2. 2.

   Menze BH, et al. The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (BRATS). IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 2015;34:1993-2024.

   Not in our library10.1109/tmi.2014.2377694 (opens in a new tab)

3. 3.

   Bareinboim E, Pearl J. Causal inference and the data-fusion problem. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2016;113:7345-7352.

   Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1510507113 (opens in a new tab)

4. 4.

   Lucas PJF, van der Gaag LC, Abu-Hanna A. Bayesian networks in biomedicine and health-care. Artif. Intell. Med. 2004;30:201-214.

   Not in our library10.1016/j.artmed.2003.11.001 (opens in a new tab)

5. 5.

   Cypko MA, et al. Validation workflow for a clinical Bayesian network model in multidisciplinary decision making in head and neck oncology treatment. Int. J. Computer Assist. Radiol. Surg. 2017;12:1959-1970.

   Not in our library10.1007/s11548-017-1531-7 (opens in a new tab)

6. 6.

   Dwork C, et al. The reusable holdout: preserving validity in adaptive data analysis. Science. 2015;349:636-638.

   Not in our library10.1126/science.aaa9375 (opens in a new tab)

7. 7.

   Schölkopf, B. et al. On causal and anticausal learning. In Proc. 29th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2012) 459–466 (2012).

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   Chapelle, O., Schölkopf, B. & Zien, A. (eds) Semi-Supervised Learning (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006).

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   Schölkopf, B., et al. in Empirical Inference (eds Schölkopf, B., Luo, Z. & Vovk, V.) Ch. 13, 129–141 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013).

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    Blöbaum, P., Shimizu, S. & Washio, T. in Advanced Methodologies for Bayesian Networks (AMBN 2015) Vol. 9505, 209–221 (Springer, Cham, 2015).

    Not in our library

11. 11.
    Why rankings of biomedical image analysis competitions should be interpreted with care · 2018

    Corrected
12. 12.

    Oliver, A., Odena, A., Raffel, C. A., Cubuk, E. D. & Goodfellow, I. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems Vol. 31 (NeurIPS 2018), 3235–3246 (2018).

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    Cozman, F. & Cohen, I. in Semisupervised Learning (eds Chapelle, O. et al.) Ch. 4, 57–72 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006).

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    Singh, A., Nowak, R. & Zhu, X. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems Vol. 21 (NIPS 2008), 1513–1520 (2008).

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    Balcan, M.-F. & Blum, A. in Semisupervised Learning (eds Chapelle, O. et al.) Ch. 22, 397–419 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006).

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    Quiñonero-Candela, J., Sugiyama, M., Schwaighofer, A. & Lawrence, N. D. (eds.) Dataset Shift in Machine Learning (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2009).

    Not in our library

17. 17.

    Pearl J, Bareinboim E. External validity: from do-calculus to transportability across populations. Stat. Sci. 2014;29:579-595.

    Not in our library10.1214/14-sts486 (opens in a new tab)

18. 18.

    Storkey, A. J. in Dataset Shift in Machine Learning (eds Quiñonero-Candela, J. et al.), Ch. 1, 3–28 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2009).

    Not in our library

19. 19.

    Zhang, K., Gong, M. & Schölkopf, B. Multi-source domain adaptation: a causal view. In Proc. Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2015) 3150–3157 (AAAI, 2015).

    Not in our library

20. 20.

    Zhang, K., Schölkopf, B., Muandet, K. & Wang, Z. Domain adaptation under target and conditional shift. In Proc. 30th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2013), Vol. 28, 819–827 (PMLR, 2013).

    Not in our library

21. 21.

    Lipton, Z. C., Wang, Y.-X. & Smola, A. J. Detecting and correcting for label shift with black box predictors. In Proc. 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2018), Vol. 80, 3122–3130 (PMLR, 2018).

    Not in our library

22. 22.

    Moreno-Torres JG, Raeder T, Alaiz-Rodríguez R, Chawla NV, Herrera F. A unifying view on dataset shift in classification. Pattern Recognit. 2012;45:521-530.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.patcog.2011.06.019 (opens in a new tab)

23. 23.

    Glocker, B., Robinson, R., Castro, D. C., Dou, Q. & Konukoglu, E. Machine learning with multi-site imaging data: an empirical study on the impact of scanner effects. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.04597 (2019).

    Not in our library

24. 24.

    Ganin Y, et al. Domain-adversarial training of neural networks. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2016;17:1-35.

    Not in our library

25. 25.

    Kamnitsas, K. et al. in Information Processing in Medical Imaging, Vol. 10265, 597–609 (Springer, Cham, 2017).

    Not in our library

26. 26.

    Frangi AF, Tsaftaris SA, Prince JL. Simulation and synthesis in medical imaging. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 2018;37:673-679.

    Not in our library10.1109/tmi.2018.2800298 (opens in a new tab)

27. 27.

    Huo Y, et al. SynSeg-Net: synthetic segmentation without target modality ground truth. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 2019;38:1016-1025.

    Not in our library10.1109/tmi.2018.2876633 (opens in a new tab)

28. 28.

    Arjovsky, M., Bottou, L., Gulrajani, I. & Lopez-Paz, D. Invariant risk minimization. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.02893 (2019).

    Not in our library

29. 29.

    Bareinboim, E., Tian, J. & Pearl, J., Recovering from selection bias in causal and statistical inference. In Proc. Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2014) 2410–2416 (AAAI, 2014).

    Not in our library

30. 30.

    Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology. 2004;15:615-625.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.ede.0000135174.63482.43 (opens in a new tab)

31. 31.

    Pearl, J. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2009).

    Not in our library

32. 32.

    Hernán MA, Cole SR. Causal diagrams and measurement bias. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2009;170:959-962.

    Not in our library10.1093/aje/kwp293 (opens in a new tab)

33. 33.

    Shahar E. Causal diagrams for encoding and evaluation of information bias. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2009;15:436-440.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01031.x (opens in a new tab)

34. 34.

    Lash TL, et al. Good practices for quantitative bias analysis. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2014;43:1969-1985.

    Not in our library10.1093/ije/dyu149 (opens in a new tab)

35. 35.

    Rubin DB. Inference and missing data. Biometrika. 1976;63:581.

    Not in our library10.1093/biomet/63.3.581 (opens in a new tab)

36. 36.

    Daniel RM, Kenward MG, Cousens SN, De Stavola BL. Using causal diagrams to guide analysis in missing data problems. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 2012;21:243-256.

    Not in our library10.1177/0962280210394469 (opens in a new tab)

37. 37.

    Mohan, K., Pearl, J. & Tian, J. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems Vol. 26 (NIPS 2013), 1277–1285 (2013).

    Not in our library

38. 38.

    Miller KL, et al. Multimodal population brain imaging in the UK Biobank prospective epidemiological study. Nat. Neurosci. 2016;19:1523-1536.

    Not in our library10.1038/nn.4393 (opens in a new tab)

39. 39.

    Conroy M, et al. The advantages of UK Biobank’s open-access strategy for health research. J. Intern. Med. 2019;286:389-397.

    Not in our library10.1111/joim.12955 (opens in a new tab)

40. 40.

    US Food and Drug Administration. Proposed Regulatory Framework for Modifications to Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)-Based Software as a Medical Device (SaMD). https://www.fda.gov/media/122535/download (FDA, 2019).

    Not in our library

41. 41.

    Parikh RB, Obermeyer Z, Navathe AS. Regulation of predictive analytics in medicine. Science. 2019;363:810-812.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aaw0029 (opens in a new tab)

42. 42.

    UK Department of Health and Social Care. Code of Conduct for Data-Driven Health and Care Technology. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/code-of-conduct-for-data-driven-health-and-care-technology (UK Department of Health and Social Care, 2018).

    Not in our library

43. 43.

    UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Evidence Standards Framework for Digital Health Technologies. https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/evidence-standards-framework-for-digital-health-technologies (UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2019).

    Not in our library

44. 44.

    NHSX, London, UK. Artificial Intelligence: How to Get it Right. Putting Policy into Practice for Safe Data-Driven Innovation in Health and Care. https://www.nhsx.nhs.uk/assets/NHSX_AI_report.pdf (NHSX, 2019).

    Not in our library

45. 45.

    Wiegand T, et al. WHO and ITU establish benchmarking process for artificial intelligence in health. Lancet. 2019;394:9-11.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30762-7 (opens in a new tab)

46. 46.

    Editorial. Walking the tightrope of artificial intelligence guidelines in clinical practice. Lancet Digit. Health1, e100 (2019).

    Not in our library10.1016/s2589-7500(19)30063-9 (opens in a new tab)

47. 47.

    Liu X, et al. Reporting guidelines for clinical trials evaluating artificial intelligence interventions are needed. Nat. Med. 2019;25:1467-1468.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41591-019-0603-3 (opens in a new tab)

48. 48.

    Ghassemi M, et al. Practical guidance on artificial intelligence for health-care data. Lancet Digit. Health. 2019;1:e157-e159.

    Not in our library10.1016/s2589-7500(19)30084-6 (opens in a new tab)

49. 49.

    Prevedello LM, et al. Challenges related to artificial intelligence research in medical imaging and the importance of image analysis competitions. Radiol. Artif. Intell. 2019;1:e180031.

    Not in our library10.1148/ryai.2019180031 (opens in a new tab)

50. 50.

    Langlotz CP, et al. A roadmap for foundational research on artificial intelligence in medical imaging: from the 2018 NIH/RSNA/ACR/The Academy Workshop. Radiology. 2019;291:781-791.

    Not in our library10.1148/radiol.2019190613 (opens in a new tab)

51. 51.

    Wiens J, et al. Do no harm: a roadmap for responsible machine learning for health care. Nat. Med. 2019;25:1337-1340.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41591-019-0548-6 (opens in a new tab)

52. 52.

    Van Calster, B., Wynants, L., Timmerman, D., Steyerberg, E. W. & Collins, G. S., Predictive analytics in health care: how can we know it works? J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.26, 1651–1654 (2019).

    Not in our library10.1093/jamia/ocz130 (opens in a new tab)

53. 53.

    Shah ND, Steyerberg EW, Kent DM. Big data and predictive analytics: recalibrating expectations. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2018;320:27-28.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.2018.5602 (opens in a new tab)

54. 54.

    Shah NH, Milstein A, Bagley SC. Making machine learning models clinically useful. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2019;322:1351.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.2019.10306 (opens in a new tab)

55. 55.

    Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, London, UK. Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare. https://www.aomrc.org.uk/reports-guidance/artificial-intelligence-in-healthcare (Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, 2019).

    Not in our library

56. 56.

    Hoffman S, Podgurski A. The use and misuse of biomedical data: is bigger really better? Am. J. Law Med. 2013;39:497-538.

    Not in our library10.1177/009885881303900401 (opens in a new tab)

57. 57.

    Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KGM. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2015;162:55.

    Not in our library10.7326/m14-0697 (opens in a new tab)

58. 58.

    Collins GS, Moons KGM. Reporting of artificial intelligence prediction models. Lancet. 2019;393:1577-1579.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30037-6 (opens in a new tab)

59. 59.

    Gebru, T. et al. Datasheets for datasets. In Proc. 5th Workshop on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Machine Learning (FAT/ML 2018) (2018).

    Not in our library

60. 60.

    Mitchell, M., et al. Model cards for model reporting. In Proc. 2019 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* 2019) 220–229 (ACM, 2019).

    Not in our library

61. 61.

    Saria, S. & Subbaswamy, A. Tutorial: safe and reliable machine learning. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.07204 (2019).

    Not in our library

62. 62.

    Chiappa, S. & Isaac, W. S. in Privacy and Identity Management. Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in the Age of Big Data (Privacy and Identity 2018) Vol. 547, 3–20 (Springer, Cham, 2019).

    Not in our library

63. 63.

    Subbaswamy, A., Schulam, P. & Saria, S. Preventing failures due to dataset shift: Learning predictive models that transport. In Proc. Twenty-Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS 2019), Vol. 89, 3118–3127 (PMLR, 2019).

    Not in our library

64. 64.

    Peters J, Janzing D, Schölkopf B. Elements of Causal Inference: Foundations and Learning Algorithms. 2017.

    Not in our library

65. 65.

    Greenland, S. & Pearl, J. in International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science (ed. Lovric, M.) 208–216 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011).

    Not in our library

66. 66.

    Swanson, J. W. & Ibrahim, J. K. in Public Health Law Research: Theory and Methods (eds Wagenaar, C. A. & Burris, S.) Ch. 10, 217–236 (Jossey-Bass, 2013).

    Not in our library

67. 67.

    Daniušis, P. et al. Inferring deterministic causal relations. In Proc. Twenty-Sixth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 2010) 143–150 (AUAI Press, 2010).

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 3

• Artificial intelligence and machine learning in cancer imaging · 2022
  No notice
• Surgical data science – from concepts toward clinical translation · 2022
  No notice
• Clinical artificial intelligence quality improvement: towards continual monitoring and updating of AI algorithms in healthcare · 2022
  No notice

Questions about this paper

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.