Assessment of demographic bias in retinal age prediction machine learning models

The retinal age gap, defined as the difference between the predicted retinal age and chronological age, is an emerging biomarker for many eye conditions and even non-ocular diseases. Machine learning (ML) models are commonly used for retinal age prediction. However, biases in ML models may lead to unfair predictions for some demographic groups, potentially exacerbating health disparities. This retrospective cross-sectional study evaluated demographic biases related to sex and ethnicity in retinal age prediction models using retinal imaging data (color fundus photography [CFP], optical coherence tomography [OCT], and combined CFP + OCT) from 9,668 healthy individuals (mean age 56.8 years; 52% female) in the UK Biobank. The RETFound foundation model was fine-tuned to predict retinal age, and bias was assessed by comparing mean absolute error (MAE) and retinal age gaps across demographic groups. The combined CFP + OCT model achieved the lowest MAE (3.01 years), outperforming CFP-only (3.40 years) and OCT-only (4.37 years) models. Significant sex differences were observed only in the CFP model (<i>p</i> < 0.001), while significant ethnicity differences appeared only in the OCT model (<i>p</i> < 0.001). No significant sex/ethnicity differences were observed in the combined model. These results demonstrate that retinal age prediction models can exhibit biases, and that these biases, along with model accuracy, are influenced by the choice of imaging modality (CFP, OCT, or combined). Identifying and addressing sources of bias is essential for safe and reliable clinical implementation. Our results emphasize the importance of comprehensive bias assessments and prospective validation, ensuring that advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence benefit all patient populations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
Published
2025-10-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2025.1653153
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Retinal Imaging and Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.36

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Assessment of demographic bias in retinal age prediction machine learning models

Emma A. M. Stanley, Nils D. Forkert, Christopher D. Nielsen, Matthias Wilms
1 citations
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
Retinal Imaging and Analysis
1.36
article

Assessment of demographic bias in retinal age prediction machine learning models

Emma A. M. Stanley, Nils D. Forkert, Christopher D. Nielsen, Matthias Wilms
article en
1 citations

Abstract

The retinal age gap, defined as the difference between the predicted retinal age and chronological age, is an emerging biomarker for many eye conditions and even non-ocular diseases. Machine learning (ML) models are commonly used for retinal age prediction. However, biases in ML models may lead to unfair predictions for some demographic groups, potentially exacerbating health disparities. This retrospective cross-sectional study evaluated demographic biases related to sex and ethnicity in retinal age prediction models using retinal imaging data (color fundus photography [CFP], optical coherence tomography [OCT], and combined CFP + OCT) from 9,668 healthy individuals (mean age 56.8 years; 52% female) in the UK Biobank. The RETFound foundation model was fine-tuned to predict retinal age, and bias was assessed by comparing mean absolute error (MAE) and retinal age gaps across demographic groups. The combined CFP + OCT model achieved the lowest MAE (3.01 years), outperforming CFP-only (3.40 years) and OCT-only (4.37 years) models. Significant sex differences were observed only in the CFP model (<i>p</i> < 0.001), while significant ethnicity differences appeared only in the OCT model (<i>p</i> < 0.001). No significant sex/ethnicity differences were observed in the combined model. These results demonstrate that retinal age prediction models can exhibit biases, and that these biases, along with model accuracy, are influenced by the choice of imaging modality (CFP, OCT, or combined). Identifying and addressing sources of bias is essential for safe and reliable clinical implementation. Our results emphasize the importance of comprehensive bias assessments and prospective validation, ensuring that advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence benefit all patient populations.

Frontiers in Artificial IntelligenceVol. 8
University of Calgary (CA), University of Michigan (US), Alberta Children's Hospital (CA), Hotchkiss Brain Institute (CA)
Canada Research Chairs
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Retinal Imaging and Analysis
1.36
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.