Generative AI to augment the fairness of foundation models in cancer pathology diagnosis.

e23230 Background: Pathology foundation models, a type of state-of-the-art deep learning models trained on diverse and large-scale datasets, have shown the ability to extract useful pathology patterns for cancer diagnosis. However, their reliability across different demographic groups is hindered by the limited training samples from minority populations. To address this challenge, we developed a generative AI-based approach, Fairness Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models (DDPM), to enhance the fairness of pathology foundation models. Methods: We obtained 30,664 whole-slide pathology images from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database covering 33 cancer types. Self-reported race, sex, and age, were collected alongside the images. Fairness DDPM mitigates biases by augmenting data from minority populations via a generative diffusion model. We evaluated three pathology foundation models (Gigapath, UNI, and CHIEF) across tumor detection and genetic mutation tasks. We further incorporated Fairness DPPM in the training process and evaluated the model performance across patient populations. We assessed model fairness using accuracy difference (AccDiff), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve difference (AUCDiff), equal opportunity (EOpp), and equal balanced accuracy (EBAcc). Results: Fairness DPPM significantly reduced AI bias across datasets and tasks (Table 1). Specifically, fairness DPPM completely eliminated racial bias in AUCDiff and EBAcc for the CHIEF model and AUCDiff, AccDiff, and EBAcc for the UNI model. In addition, Fairness DDPM eliminated 80.0% of gender and age, bias in EBAcc for the Gigapath model. Across diagnostic tasks, fairness DPPM significantly mitigates bias in all sensitive attributes (race, sex, and age). Conclusions: Our study shows that the fairness DDPM effectively mitigates biases in pathology foundation models. By incorporating fairness DDPM, AI diagnostic algorithms achieved greater equity across populations, representing a pivotal step toward the global adoption of fair and reliable AI in cancer pathology diagnoses. Comparison of fairness DPPM and conventional foundation models. (a) CHIEF Evaluation Metrics Fairness DPPM Baseline % Mitigated EOpp 21/41 41/230 51.22% EBAcc 7/17 17/115 41.18% AccDiff 8/14 14/115 57.14% AUCDiff 5/18 18/115 27.78% (b) UNI Evaluation Metrics Fairness DPPM Baseline % Mitigated EOpp 23/34 34/230 67.65% EBAcc 7/12 12/115 58.33% AccDiff 7/13 13/115 53.85% AUCDiff 6/16 16/115 37.50% (c) GigaPath Evaluation Metrics Fairness DPPM Baseline % Mitigated EOpp 8/21 21/230 38.10% EBAcc 8/10 10/115 80.00% AccDiff 4/10 10/115 40.00% AUCDiff 7/14 14/115 50.00% *Cancer types covered in this study: BRCA, LUAD, UCEC, COAD, READ, LUSC, HNSC, KIRC, LGG, SKCM, STAD, BLCA, LIHC, SARC, THYM, CESC, PAAD, KICH, CHOL, OV, THCA.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2025-05-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2025.43.16_suppl.e23230
Primary Topic
AI in cancer detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Generative AI to augment the fairness of foundation models in cancer pathology diagnosis.

Ting‐Wan Kao, Shih‐Yen Lin, Pei-Chen Tsai, Yongli Dong et al.
Journal of Clinical Oncology
AI in cancer detection
article

Generative AI to augment the fairness of foundation models in cancer pathology diagnosis.

Ting‐Wan Kao, Shih‐Yen Lin, Pei-Chen Tsai, Yongli Dong, Kun‐Hsing Yu, Jung-Hsien Chiang, Po‐Chih Lin, Fang‐Yi Su, Po-Jen Lin, Y. C. Ho, Michael T. Lee
article en

Abstract

e23230 Background: Pathology foundation models, a type of state-of-the-art deep learning models trained on diverse and large-scale datasets, have shown the ability to extract useful pathology patterns for cancer diagnosis. However, their reliability across different demographic groups is hindered by the limited training samples from minority populations. To address this challenge, we developed a generative AI-based approach, Fairness Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models (DDPM), to enhance the fairness of pathology foundation models. Methods: We obtained 30,664 whole-slide pathology images from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database covering 33 cancer types. Self-reported race, sex, and age, were collected alongside the images. Fairness DDPM mitigates biases by augmenting data from minority populations via a generative diffusion model. We evaluated three pathology foundation models (Gigapath, UNI, and CHIEF) across tumor detection and genetic mutation tasks. We further incorporated Fairness DPPM in the training process and evaluated the model performance across patient populations. We assessed model fairness using accuracy difference (AccDiff), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve difference (AUCDiff), equal opportunity (EOpp), and equal balanced accuracy (EBAcc). Results: Fairness DPPM significantly reduced AI bias across datasets and tasks (Table 1). Specifically, fairness DPPM completely eliminated racial bias in AUCDiff and EBAcc for the CHIEF model and AUCDiff, AccDiff, and EBAcc for the UNI model. In addition, Fairness DDPM eliminated 80.0% of gender and age, bias in EBAcc for the Gigapath model. Across diagnostic tasks, fairness DPPM significantly mitigates bias in all sensitive attributes (race, sex, and age). Conclusions: Our study shows that the fairness DDPM effectively mitigates biases in pathology foundation models. By incorporating fairness DDPM, AI diagnostic algorithms achieved greater equity across populations, representing a pivotal step toward the global adoption of fair and reliable AI in cancer pathology diagnoses. Comparison of fairness DPPM and conventional foundation models. (a) CHIEF Evaluation Metrics Fairness DPPM Baseline % Mitigated EOpp 21/41 41/230 51.22% EBAcc 7/17 17/115 41.18% AccDiff 8/14 14/115 57.14% AUCDiff 5/18 18/115 27.78% (b) UNI Evaluation Metrics Fairness DPPM Baseline % Mitigated EOpp 23/34 34/230 67.65% EBAcc 7/12 12/115 58.33% AccDiff 7/13 13/115 53.85% AUCDiff 6/16 16/115 37.50% (c) GigaPath Evaluation Metrics Fairness DPPM Baseline % Mitigated EOpp 8/21 21/230 38.10% EBAcc 8/10 10/115 80.00% AccDiff 4/10 10/115 40.00% AUCDiff 7/14 14/115 50.00% *Cancer types covered in this study: BRCA, LUAD, UCEC, COAD, READ, LUSC, HNSC, KIRC, LGG, SKCM, STAD, BLCA, LIHC, SARC, THYM, CESC, PAAD, KICH, CHOL, OV, THCA.

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 43(16_suppl)
Harvard University (US), National Cheng Kung University (TW), Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology (TW)
Openalex Percentile: Top 95%
AI in cancer detection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.