Files
myWiki/raw/papers/anthonio-principled-uncertainty-clinical-ai-2026.md

2.7 KiB

title, source, authors, affiliation, year, category, published
title source authors affiliation year category published
Principled Uncertainty in Clinical AI: End-to-End Bayesian Modelling and Algorithmic Equity Auditing Across Multimodal Patient Data arXiv:2606.09789v1 Oladimeji Anthonio, Dimeji Abdulsobur Olawuyi, Oloruntoba Ajayi, Temiloluwa Aderemi, Joseph Odamo Centre for Algorithmic Health Equity, University of Ibadan, FUTA 2026 cs.CY 2026-06-08

Principled Uncertainty in Clinical AI: End-to-End Bayesian Modelling and Algorithmic Equity Auditing Across Multimodal Patient Data

Authors: Oladimeji Anthonio*, Dimeji Abdulsobur Olawuyi, Oloruntoba Ajayi, Temiloluwa Aderemi, Joseph Odamo arXiv: 2606.09789v1 [cs.CY] Published: 2026-06-08 Affiliation: Centre for Algorithmic Health Equity, Ìyàwó, Ibadan; University of Ibadan; FUTA Akure

Abstract

Clinical artificial intelligence (AI) systems routinely produce predictions without principled quantification of uncertainty, limiting their trustworthiness in high-stakes medical environments. This paper presents an integrated research programme addressing two interconnected problems: (1) the development of a fully end-to-end Bayesian uncertainty modelling framework for multimodal clinical data, and (2) the application of calibrated uncertainty estimates as a formal measure of algorithmic equity across patient subgroups.

The architecture comprises modality-specific variational encoders, a precision-weighted late fusion mechanism, and a decomposed uncertainty output head that separates aleatoric from epistemic uncertainty. The system is trained with a composite Bayesian loss incorporating binary cross-entropy, KL divergence regularisation, and an uncertainty calibration penalty.

Key Results:

  • ECE = 0.096 (well-calibrated)
  • Primary/rural facility patients: 15.3% uncertainty equity gap (p < 0.001, r = 0.698)
  • Low SES patients: 6.8% gap (p < 0.001, r = 0.617)
  • Elderly patients: 3.9% gap (p < 0.001)
  • No significant sex-based disparity detected

Key Concepts