Back

Evaluating and Improving the Performance and Racial Fairness of Algorithms for GFR Estimation

Zhang, L.; Richter, L. R.; Kim, T.; Hripcsak, G.

2024-01-09 health informatics
10.1101/2024.01.07.24300943 medRxiv
Show abstract

Data-driven clinical prediction algorithms are used widely by clinicians. Understanding what factors can impact the performance and fairness of data-driven algorithms is an important step towards achieving equitable healthcare. To investigate the impact of modeling choices on the algorithmic performance and fairness, we make use of a case study to build a prediction algorithm for estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) based on the patients electronic health record (EHR). We compare three distinct approaches for estimating GFR: CKD-EPI equations, epidemiological models, and EHR-based models. For epidemiological models and EHR-based models, four machine learning models of varying computational complexity (i.e., linear regression, support vector machine, random forest regression, and neural network) were compared. Performance metrics included root mean squared error (RMSE), median difference, and the proportion of GFR estimates within 30% of the measured GFR value (P30). Differential performance between non-African American and African American group was used to assess algorithmic fairness with respect to race. Our study showed that the variable race had a negligible effect on error, accuracy, and differential performance. Furthermore, including more relevant clinical features (e.g., common comorbidities of chronic kidney disease) and using more complex machine learning models, namely random forest regression, significantly lowered the estimation error of GFR. However, the difference in performance between African American and non-African American patients did not decrease, where the estimation error for African American patients remained consistently higher than non-African American patients, indicating that more objective patient characteristics should be discovered and included to improve algorithm performance.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.