In the Picture: Medical Imaging Datasets, Artifacts, and their Living Review

Datasets play a critical role in medical imaging research, yet issues such as label quality, shortcuts, and metadata are often overlooked. This lack of attention may harm the generalizability of algorithms and, consequently, negatively impact patient outcomes. While existing medical imaging literature reviews mostly focus on machine learning (ML) methods, with only a few focusing on datasets for specific applications, these reviews remain static -- they are published once and not updated thereafter. This fails to account for emerging evidence, such as biases, shortcuts, and additional annotations that other researchers may contribute after the dataset is published. We refer to these newly discovered findings of datasets as research artifacts. To address this gap, we propose a living review that continuously tracks public datasets and their associated research artifacts across multiple medical imaging applications. Our approach includes a framework for the living review to monitor data documentation artifacts, and an SQL database to visualize the citation relationships between research artifact and dataset. Lastly, we discuss key considerations for creating medical imaging datasets, review best practices for data annotation, discuss the significance of shortcuts and demographic diversity, and emphasize the importance of managing datasets throughout their entire lifecycle. Our demo is publicly available at http://130.226.140.142.

Towards actionability for open medical imaging datasets: lessons from community-contributed platforms for data management and stewardship

Medical imaging datasets are fundamental to artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare. The accuracy, robustness and fairness of diagnostic algorithms depend on the data (and its quality) on which the models are trained and evaluated. Medical imaging datasets have become increasingly available to the public, and are often hosted on Community-Contributed Platforms (CCP), including private companies like Kaggle or HuggingFace. While open data is important to enhance the redistribution of data's public value, we find that the current CCP governance model fails to uphold the quality needed and recommended practices for sharing, documenting, and evaluating datasets. In this paper we investigate medical imaging datasets on CCPs and how they are documented, shared, and maintained. We first highlight some differences between medical imaging and computer vision, particularly in the potentially harmful downstream effects due to poor adoption of recommended dataset management practices. We then analyze 20 (10 medical and 10 computer vision) popular datasets on CCPs and find vague licenses, lack of persistent identifiers and storage, duplicates and missing metadata, with differences between the platforms. We present "actionability" as a conceptual metric to reveal the data quality gap between characteristics of data on CCPs and the desired characteristics of data for AI in healthcare. Finally, we propose a commons-based stewardship model for documenting, sharing and maintaining datasets on CCPs and end with a discussion of limitations and open questions.