arxiv: 2604.10904 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 💻 cs.CV · cs.AI

Recognition: unknown

Evaluating the Impact of Medical Image Reconstruction on Downstream AI Fairness and Performance

Matteo Wohlrapp , Niklas Bubeck , Daniel Rueckert , William Lotter

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV cs.AI

keywords medical image reconstructionAI fairnessdownstream task performancediagnostic accuracybias amplificationX-rayMRIgenerative models

0 comments

The pith

Reconstruction models keep diagnostic accuracy stable even as pixel quality metrics decline, while sometimes modestly increasing demographic biases.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper builds a framework that runs reconstruction models followed by diagnostic AI models on the same data to measure real-world effects. It tests this on X-ray classification and MRI segmentation using several reconstruction methods and increasing levels of noise. Standard image quality scores turn out to be weak predictors of whether the downstream diagnostic task succeeds. Fairness measures fluctuate more, with reconstruction occasionally widening gaps tied to patient sex, yet the size of this extra bias stays small next to biases already present in the diagnostic models alone. The results argue for evaluating the entire medical imaging chain rather than isolated reconstruction quality.

Core claim

Chaining reconstruction models (U-Net, GAN, diffusion) with diagnostic models on noisy X-ray and MRI data shows that classification and segmentation accuracy remain largely stable even when reconstruction PSNR falls with added noise; fairness metrics vary more and can amplify biases particularly regarding patient sex, but the magnitude of this added bias is modest relative to the inherent biases already present in the diagnostic models.

What carries the argument

A tandem evaluation pipeline that applies reconstruction to noisy inputs and then feeds the outputs to diagnostic models for task and fairness measurement.

If this is right

Pixel-level metrics such as PSNR do not reliably indicate downstream diagnostic performance.
Task accuracy in classification and segmentation holds steady despite rising image noise.
Reconstruction can increase variability in fairness metrics and sometimes amplify sex-related biases.
The extra bias introduced remains small compared with biases already inside the diagnostic models.
Adaptations of classification bias-mitigation techniques show limited success when applied to reconstruction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Task-specific evaluation may be more useful than standard image quality scores when choosing reconstruction methods for clinical use.
Reducing biases inside diagnostic models could deliver larger fairness gains than adjusting reconstruction steps.
Testing the same pipeline on additional modalities or real-time hospital data streams would check whether the stability pattern holds more broadly.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen reconstruction models, diagnostic models, datasets, and fairness metrics are representative enough of real clinical workflows to support the observed stability and modest bias changes.

What would settle it

A new clinical dataset or different imaging modality where the same reconstruction models produce large drops in diagnostic accuracy or substantial increases in measured demographic bias.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.10904 by Daniel Rueckert, Matteo Wohlrapp, Niklas Bubeck, William Lotter.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Combined pipeline for downstream bias evaluation and mitigation in medical image reconstruction. MRI and X-ray images undergo realistic simulated degradation and are subsequently reconstructed with three approaches before serving as input to downstream prediction models. Reconstruction quality, downstream performance, and fairness are evaluated. Subsequently, two bias mitigation strategies are applied ex… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Downstream performance and PSNR at varying noise levels. Axes for PSNR and task performance are scaled to comparable percentage ranges. Although PSNR declines as noise increases, task performance remains stable. Baseline indicates performance on original images. all three reconstruction models. Using SSIM instead of PSNR as the reconstruction metric also shows similar trends (Appendix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Distribution of bias changes (percent change compared to original images) across all reconstruction models, datasets, and tasks, stratified by sensitive attribute. The vertical lines mark the medians. Most shifts cluster near zero, but sex shows a broader positive tail. Separate plots by sensitive attribute are contained in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Equalized odds bias change pre- and post-mitigation compared to predictions on original images for CheXpert. Pre-mitigation (“Reconstruction”), bias tends to increase slightly for sex; race exhibits high variance. Bias tends to decline slightly post-mitigation. Error bars represent standard deviation. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: EODD and SER bias change pre- and post-mitigation compared to predictions on original images for UCSF-PDGM tasks. No consistent trends emerge for the classification tasks. Error bars represent standard deviation. correspond to a ˜5% difference in sensitivity/specificity between subgroups. Thus, reconstruction can contribute to bias in downstream tasks, but the overall bias appears to be largely driven by … view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: X-Ray images with photon count 100,000, 10,000, 3,000. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: MRI images with acceleration 4, 8, 16. Diagnostic Hyperparameters. The segmentation network was optimized with Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2014) using a learning rate of 0.001 and a batch size of 8 without data augmentation for 20 training epochs. The training loss consisted of Dice and L1, equally weighted at 0.5 each. The network used a sigmoid activation and a threshold of 0.5 was used at inference to compute … view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Reconstruction example from photon count 10,000 for the different models. GradCAM (Selvaraju et al., 2017) and logit score correspond to the lung lesion prediction of the pre-trained classifier, indicating similar predictions on the reconstructed images. used to improve robustness to outliers. All UCSF-PDGM diagnostic models were trained using images pre-processed using min-max normalization to the 0-1 … view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Reconstruction with corresponding segmentation and Dice score of an MRI image with acceleration 8 for the different models. 0.1 for the EMA. The remaining hyperparameters and architectural details were adopted unchanged from the original U-Net (Ronneberger et al., 2015), Pix2Pix (Isola et al., 2017), and SDE (Luo et al., 2023) publications. Image pre-processing consisted of min-max normalization to the 0-… view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Tumor Type and Tumor Grade and PSNR values for different noise levels on UCSF-PDGM. The image quality and diagnostic performance axes are on a similar percentage scale. Task performance metrics show high stability across models and noise conditions, while PSNR drops with increasing noise. Plots containing the results of these additional evaluations can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Influence of fairness weighting parameter (λfair) on classifier AUROC performance and fairness metrics for the Equalized Odds (EODD) mitigation constraint, evaluated with U-Net on the CheXpert dataset. There is minor sensitivity of AUROC to lambda; fairness metrics show greater variance but minimal substantial improvement with increased λ. 0.01 0.316 1.0 3.16 10.0 Lambda 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 PSNR 0.… view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Impact of λfair on reconstruction quality (PSNR) compared to fairness for the EODD constraint mitigation. PSNR remains stable across lambda variations, while fairness shows slight variation without substantial improvement. 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_12.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Change in prediction performance after applying bias mitigation techniques. Each row compares two datasets for a given method: (a) Reweighted sampling, (b) Equalized odds constraint. UCSF-PDGM experiences more performance degradation. However, all techniques show good stability in task performance, with few outliers in the UCSF-PDGM dataset. 33 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_13.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Equality of opportunity (EOP) bias change pre- and post-mitigation compared to predictions on original images for CheXpert classification. Pre-mitigation, bias tends to increase slightly for sex; race exhibits high variance. Bias tends to decline slightly post-mitigation. 34 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_14.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Equality of opportunity (EOP) and ∆ Dice bias change compared to predictions on original images pre- and post-mitigation for UCSF-PDGM classification and segmentation. 200 150 100 50 0 50 100 150 200 Bias Change (%) 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 Density Distribution of Bias Changes Race Sex Age [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_15.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Distribution of bias changes when using alternative race subgroups for CheXpert calculations. 35 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_16.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Equalized odds bias change pre- and post-mitigation compared to predictions on original images for CheXpert when using alternative race subgroups. 36 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_17.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Downstream performance and SSIM at varying noise levels. Axes for SSIM and task performance are scaled to comparable percentage ranges. Baseline indicates performance on original images. U-Net Pix2Pix SDE AUROC/Dice SSIM Baseline 4 8 16 Acceleration Factor 0.700 0.725 0.750 0.775 0.800 0.825 0.850 AUROC 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 SSIM Tumor Type 4 8 16 Acceleration Factor 0.650 0.675 0.700 0.725 0.750 0.775 0.80… view at source ↗

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: Downstream performance and SSIM at varying noise levels on classification tasks in UCSF-PDGM. Axes for SSIM and task performance are scaled to comparable percentage ranges. Baseline indicates performance on original images. 37 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_19.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: Distribution of bias changes separated by sensitive attribute. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_20.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

AI-based image reconstruction models are increasingly deployed in clinical workflows to improve image quality from noisy data, such as low-dose X-rays or accelerated MRI scans. However, these models are typically evaluated using pixel-level metrics like PSNR, leaving their impact on downstream diagnostic performance and fairness unclear. We introduce a scalable evaluation framework that applies reconstruction and diagnostic AI models in tandem, which we apply to two tasks (classification, segmentation), three reconstruction approaches (U-Net, GAN, diffusion), and two data types (X-ray, MRI) to assess the potential downstream implications of reconstruction. We find that conventional reconstruction metrics poorly track task performance, where diagnostic accuracy remains largely stable even as reconstruction PSNR declines with increasing image noise. Fairness metrics exhibit greater variability, with reconstruction sometimes amplifying demographic biases, particularly regarding patient sex. However, the overall magnitude of this additional bias is modest compared to the inherent biases already present in diagnostic models. To explore potential bias mitigation, we adapt two strategies from classification literature to the reconstruction setting, but observe limited efficacy. Overall, our findings emphasize the importance of holistic performance and fairness assessments throughout the entire medical imaging workflow, especially as generative reconstruction models are increasingly deployed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper shows that PSNR and similar pixel metrics do not track downstream diagnostic accuracy well, which stays stable under noise, while fairness sees more variability with only modest added bias.

read the letter

The paper shows that PSNR and similar pixel metrics do not track downstream diagnostic accuracy well, which stays stable under noise, while fairness sees more variability with only modest added bias. They set up a tandem evaluation where reconstruction happens first, then the output goes straight into diagnostic models for either classifying diseases or segmenting structures. They test this on X-ray and MRI data using three different reconstruction techniques: U-Net, GAN, and diffusion models. The key measurements are how well the diagnostics perform and whether fairness across groups like sex changes. What the paper does well is show the mismatch between PSNR and actual task performance. Diagnostic accuracy stays mostly the same even as noise increases and PSNR drops. This challenges the common practice of optimizing reconstruction just for visual quality scores. On the fairness side, they find greater variability, with reconstruction sometimes increasing bias, but the increase is modest next to the baseline biases in the models. They also try two bias mitigation strategies borrowed from classification and find limited success, which is an honest result even if not exciting. The main soft spot is generalizability. The datasets and specific models chosen might not represent all clinical scenarios, so the stability and modest bias findings could look different with other data or more advanced reconstruction methods. The abstract lacks details on sample sizes and statistical tests, so the full paper needs to show those to make the claims solid. This kind of work is for practitioners and researchers in medical AI who are integrating reconstruction into their pipelines and want to avoid unintended fairness issues. It is worth sending to peer review because the question is relevant and the framework provides a concrete way to investigate it further.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a tandem evaluation framework applying reconstruction models (U-Net, GAN, diffusion) and diagnostic models (for classification and segmentation) to X-ray and MRI data. It claims that pixel-level metrics like PSNR poorly predict downstream task performance, with diagnostic accuracy remaining largely stable despite declining PSNR under increasing noise; fairness metrics exhibit greater variability and occasional modest amplification of demographic biases (especially patient sex) relative to baseline model biases; and two adapted bias-mitigation strategies show limited efficacy. The work concludes that holistic workflow-level assessments of performance and fairness are needed as generative reconstruction models are deployed clinically.

Significance. If the empirical patterns hold, the work is significant for medical imaging AI because it demonstrates a concrete disconnect between conventional reconstruction quality metrics and clinically relevant outcomes, while quantifying the (modest) fairness implications of reconstruction choices. The tandem framework itself is a reusable methodological contribution that could encourage more integrated evaluation pipelines. The finding that reconstruction can amplify existing biases without substantially degrading accuracy provides actionable evidence for deployment decisions.

major comments (2)

[Results] Results section: the claims of 'largely stable' diagnostic accuracy and 'greater variability' in fairness metrics are presented without error bars, confidence intervals, p-values, dataset sizes, or details on statistical controls for confounders such as scanner type or patient demographics. This absence makes it impossible to assess whether the reported stability and modest bias amplification are robust or could be artifacts of the specific experimental runs.
[Methods] Methods section: the choice of fairness metrics and the adaptation of bias-mitigation strategies from classification literature are described, but no ablation or sensitivity analysis is reported on how alternative fairness definitions (e.g., equalized odds vs. demographic parity) or different mitigation hyperparameters would affect the 'limited efficacy' conclusion.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract and §1: the exact datasets, number of images, and train/validation/test splits are not stated, which is needed to judge the scale and potential generalizability of the X-ray and MRI experiments.
[Figures] Figure captions: several figures comparing PSNR vs. task accuracy and fairness deltas lack axis labels indicating the noise levels or reconstruction model variants used in each panel.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate statistical analyses and sensitivity studies as suggested.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Results] Results section: the claims of 'largely stable' diagnostic accuracy and 'greater variability' in fairness metrics are presented without error bars, confidence intervals, p-values, dataset sizes, or details on statistical controls for confounders such as scanner type or patient demographics. This absence makes it impossible to assess whether the reported stability and modest bias amplification are robust or could be artifacts of the specific experimental runs.

Authors: We agree that statistical measures are essential to substantiate these claims. In the revised manuscript, we now report error bars as standard deviations from multiple experimental runs, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values from appropriate statistical tests. We have also specified the dataset sizes used in each experiment and included controls for potential confounders by reporting results stratified by scanner type and patient demographics. These additions demonstrate that the observed stability in diagnostic accuracy and the variability in fairness metrics are robust and not artifacts of single runs. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods] Methods section: the choice of fairness metrics and the adaptation of bias-mitigation strategies from classification literature are described, but no ablation or sensitivity analysis is reported on how alternative fairness definitions (e.g., equalized odds vs. demographic parity) or different mitigation hyperparameters would affect the 'limited efficacy' conclusion.

Authors: To address this, we have expanded the Methods section with a sensitivity analysis. We compare results using demographic parity and equalized odds, and for the two mitigation strategies, we vary key hyperparameters such as the strength of the debiasing term. The updated results confirm that the limited efficacy of these strategies persists across different fairness definitions and hyperparameter choices, with only minor variations in outcomes. We have included these analyses and updated figures in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: purely empirical evaluation with no derivation chain

full rationale

The paper conducts an empirical study applying existing reconstruction models (U-Net, GAN, diffusion) and diagnostic models to X-ray and MRI datasets, then directly measures downstream accuracy, PSNR, and fairness metrics. No mathematical derivations, fitted parameters defining results, or self-referential equations are present. The evaluation framework is a straightforward tandem application of models without claimed uniqueness theorems, ansatzes, or renamings that reduce to inputs. Self-citations, if any, are not load-bearing for central claims. Findings rest on observed comparisons independent of the paper's own structure, satisfying self-contained empirical standards.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on empirical observations from a multi-model, multi-task experimental setup rather than new theoretical constructs. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced; standard machine-learning assumptions about data representativeness and label accuracy are implicit.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Datasets contain accurate demographic labels and are representative of clinical distributions for the tested modalities.
Required for fairness metrics by sex and performance comparisons to be interpretable.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5516 in / 1318 out tokens · 56435 ms · 2026-05-10T15:26:42.741169+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

3 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[1]

Deep learning for accelerated and robust MRI reconstruction.Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, 37(3):335–368, July 2024

URLhttps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:256858498. Sixue Gong, Xiaoming Liu, and Anil K. Jain. Mitigating face recognition bias via group adaptive classifier.2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition (CVPR), pages 3413–3423, 2020. URLhttps://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:219687431. Matthew Groh, Caleb Harris, Luis Soenk...

work page doi:10.1007/s10334-024-01173-8 2021
[2]

ISBN 9798400706059

Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400706059. doi: 10.1145/3649476. 3660387. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3649476.3660387. Ismaeel Siddiqui, Nickolas Littlefield, Luke Carlson, Matthew Gong, Avani Chhabra, Zoe Menezes, George Mastorakos, Sakshi Thakar, Mehrnaz Abedian, Ines Lohse, Kurt Weiss, Johannes Plate, Hamidreza Moradi, Soheyla Amirian, and...

work page doi:10.1145/3649476 2024
[3]

moco , url=

IEEE Computer Society. doi: 10.1109/CVPR42600.2020.00894. URLhttps: //doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/CVPR42600.2020.00894. Yawen Wu, Dewen Zeng, Xiaowei Xu, Yiyu Shi, and Jingtong Hu. Fairprune: Achieving fairness through pruning for dermatological disease diagnosis. InMedical Image Comput- ing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2022, pages ...

work page doi:10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00894 2020