Assessment of Fairness and Bias of an Image-based Surgical Site Infection Detection AI Model

Background Evaluating fairness in artificial intelligence (AI) is essential before clinical implementation to prevent unintended harm across diverse patient populations. This study assesses performance differences of an image-based surgical site infection (SSI) detection model across age, gender, geography, race, and skin color. Methods Model development/validation study using retrospective, multicenter data across surgical subspecialties from adults who submitted an image of their incision via the electronic health record within 30 days of their procedure between 2019-2024. Area under receiver operating curve (AUROC) was compared by age (<55 vs. ≥55 years old), gender (male vs. female), geography (Rochester, Minnesota vs. Jacksonville, Florida vs. Scottsdale, Arizona vs. regional Minnesota/Wisconsin areas), race (White/Caucasian vs. non-White/Caucasian), and skin color (Fitpatrick I-III vs. IV-VI and Monk A-E vs. F-J). Results Training data contained 13,702 images from 4,274 patients between 2019-2022 (50.1% ≥55 years old; 63.2% female; 91.6% White/Caucasian; 58.5% Rochester, 17.3% Florida, 10.5% Arizona; 96.3% light skin tone), of which 1,348 images (9.8%) had an SSI. No differences in SSI detection existed for age, gender, race, or skin color (AUROC 0.83-0.87, p>0.09), however geographical differences were significant: lowest AUROC 0.83 (95% CI 0.77-0.88) vs. highest AUROC 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.89, p=0.01). Temporal validation using 4,242 images from 1,353 patients between 2022-2023 showed intact fairness across subgroups (ΔAUROC ≤0.06) except geography (ΔAUROC ≤0.16). Conclusions The model behaved fairly across age, gender, race, and skin color, however geographical differences persisted. These findings have practical implications underscoring the importance of evaluating bias in clinical AI before deployment.