×

Academic Intelligence · Curated Daily

Explore the Frontier of Global Academia

AcademicHub aggregates real-time literature from top journals and preprint platforms. Build your personal research radar and let large language models compile cross-disciplinary analysis briefings automatically.

Authors: Knolle ×
Shuffle
01.
Nature (Science) 2026-06-24

Disparate privacy risks from medical AI

Medical artificial intelligence (AI) models hold the promise to improve global access to high-quality diagnostics1. However, the training data underlying these models often contain sensitive patient information that may be exposed through privacy attacks2–7. Previous research has primarily quantified the success of these attacks in aggregate, across all records in a dataset. Thus, the privacy risk faced by individual patients, who often contribute multiple similar records to a training dataset, is poorly understood. Here we present one of the first patient-level privacy audits of AI models for medical diagnostic applications. We focus on membership inference attacks2–4 (MIAs), which seek to determine whether the data of a given individual were used to train a model. Across a diverse range of medical datasets, we show that MIAs can achieve near-perfect success rates for individual patients, even when the aggregate performance does not substantially deviate from random guessing. We further find that the number of patients with high attack success increases substantially with model capacity, and that underrepresented groups—stratified by disease status, self-reported race, insurance, sex or imaging protocol—face disproportionately high attack success. Together, our findings show that aggregate privacy metrics can severely underestimate individual privacy risk. Whether the disparate risk profiles we observe extend to attacks beyond MIAs remains an open question, motivating the further development of risk assessment and mitigation techniques that cater to all data-contributing patients. AI models for medical diagnostics are vulnerable to membership inference attacks.

02.
medRxiv (Medicine) 2026-06-18

Factor Analysing Predictive Processing: No Evidence for a General Factor Across Tasks

Background & Hypothesis: Dysfunctional predictive processing (PP), specifically the aberrant weighting of priors, is a frequently-proposed mechanism for psychosis and psychosis-like phenomena (schizotypy). Evidence for this theory mostly originates from single-task studies, which assume that all tasks load onto a single latent construct of PP performance, but the underlying factor structure of PP tasks is unknown. PP deficits in psychosis may be better described by a two-factor, hierarchical model: weakened lower-level (perceptual) priors compensated by higher-level (cognitive) priors. Study Design: This study implements a multi-paradigm approach in healthy participants to investigate latent constructs underlying PP and their relationship to schizotypy. Participants (N = 73) completed 6 tasks measuring reliance on priors across language, memory, visual, and auditory domains. A factor analysis investigated whether performance across tasks is captured by a single or two-factor model. Study Results: Although a two-factor model best described performance, factors reflected within-task correlations rather than a PP hierarchy. Cross-task PP measures were poorly correlated, suggesting that individuals' weighting of priors was task-specific. A full model including all task outcomes (not factors) significantly predicted the severity of schizotypal aberrant beliefs but no other schizotypal measures. Conclusions: These results do not evidence a single factor underpinning PP performance. It is therefore inappropriate to use results from single tasks to propose a generalised PP deficit in psychosis. Variation was also not captured by a two-factor hierarchical model of priors. Further multi-paradigm research is required to evaluate alternative models or additional variables that describe aberrant PP in psychosis.