Back

Unmeasured but Not Unbiased: The Missingness Demographic Leakage Audit (MDLA) for Calibration-Aware Fairness Evaluation in Critical Care Mortality Prediction

Patel, K.; Beedala, P.

2026-05-03 health informatics
10.64898/2026.05.01.26352193 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveClinical prediction models trained on electronic health records are routinely evaluated for fairness on observed feature values, but the informativeness of which measurements are absent remains unaudited. We developed the Missingness Demographic Leakage Audit (MDLA), a reproducible four-step informatics framework that tests whether patterns of clinical measurement absence function as latent demographic proxies -- constituting a bias pathway invisible to standard fairness audits. Materials and MethodsWe applied MDLA across development (MIMIC-IV v2.2; n=50,827; mortality 10.2%) and external validation (eICU-CRD v2.0; n=137,773; mortality 9.5%) cohorts following TRIPOD+AI standards. XGBoost, random forest, and logistic regression were trained on 43 clinical features and 44 binary missingness indicators. MDLA quantified demographic predictability from missingness alone, tested feature-level associations with Bonferroni correction, and verified model reliance via ablation. A calibration-aware fairness audit evaluated five criteria across four demographic axes; six post-hoc recalibration strategies were compared on a fairness-utility Pareto frontier. ResultsMissingness indicators alone predicted racial group membership above chance (AUROC=0.543; 95% CI, 0.540-0.546), with 18 of 43 features showing Bonferroni-significant race-missingness associations (all Cramers V<0.10). Ablation confirmed model reliance: adding missingness indicators increased racial AUROC disparity by 10.7% (0.063 to 0.069) without improving global performance. XGBoost achieved AUROC=0.910 internally (AUROC=0.799 on external validation). Global Platt recalibration reduced overall calibration error by 94% and maximum racial calibration error by 51%, with zero AUROC loss and successful parameter transfer to external validation without retraining. ConclusionMDLA provides a structured, reproducible protocol for detecting missingness-encoded demographic signals prior to model deployment. Applied across 188,600 ICU patient-stays from two institutionally diverse databases, it identified a statistically confirmed but subtle bias pathway undetectable by standard fairness audits. Missingness-aware auditing and calibration-aware evaluation should be integrated into clinical AI validation pipelines.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
17.3%
2
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
12.2%
3
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
4
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.8%
5
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 36%
4.3%
6
Critical Care Explorations
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
7
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.9%
50% of probability mass above
8
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.9%
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 40%
3.6%
10
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.7%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 50%
2.1%
12
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
13
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
14
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.9%
15
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
16
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
17
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
18
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
19
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.5%
20
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.2%
21
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
22
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
23
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
24
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
25
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
26
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%
27
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
28
Critical Care
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
29
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%