Reporting of Fairness Metrics in Clinical Risk Prediction Models: A Call for Change
Rountree, L. I.; Lin, Y.-T.; Liu, C.; Salvatore, M.; Admon, A.; Nallamothu, B. K.; Singh, K.; Basu, A.; Mukherjee, B.
Show abstract
Clinical risk prediction models integrated in digitized healthcare systems hold promise for personalized primary prevention and care. Fairness metrics are important tools for evaluating potential disparities across sensitive features in the field of prediction modeling. In this paper, we seek to assess the uptake of fairness metrics in clinical risk prediction modeling by conducting a scoping literature review of recent high impact publications in the areas of cardiovascular disease and COVID-19. Our review shows that fairness metrics have rarely been used in clinical risk prediction modeling despite their ability to identify inequality and flag potential discrimination. We also find that the data used in clinical risk prediction models remain largely demographically homogeneous, demonstrating an urgent need for collecting and using data from diverse populations. To address these issues, we suggest specific strategies for increasing the use of fairness metrics while developing clinical risk prediction models.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Early high-sensitivity troponin elevation in predicting short-term mortality in sepsis: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis 94%
- Actionable absolute risk prediction of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a behavior-management approach based on data from 464,547 UK Biobank participants 93%
- Population risk factors for severe disease and mortality in COVID-19: A global systematic review and meta-analysis 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 93%
- GPT for RCTs?: Using AI to measure adherence to reporting guidelines 93%
- The devil is in the details: Reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopedic clinical trials 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Quantitative bias analysis methods for summary level epidemiologic data in the peer-reviewed literature: a systematic review 94%
- Large-scale validation of the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) using a short form: high risk of bias models show poorer discrimination 93%
- Estimating and Testing an Index of Bias Attributable to Composite Outcomes in Comparative Studies 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Mendelian randomization, lipids and coronary artery disease: trade-offs between study designs and assumptions 92%
- Potential Biases in Test-Negative Design Studies of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Arising from the Inclusion of Asymptomatic Individuals 91%
- A system for phenotype harmonization in the NHLBI Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) Program 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Response to Polygenic Risk: Results of the MyGeneRank Mobile Application-Based Coronary Artery Disease Study 92%
- Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to original abstracts using an artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and blinded human reviewers 90%
- Predicting critical state after COVID-19 diagnosis: Model development using a large US electronic health record dataset 90%
"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.