Back

Demographic Calibration Gaps in Breast Cancer Risk Prediction: Introducing the Demographic Calibration Gap Score

Eniolade, M.

2026-06-22 health informatics
10.64898/2026.06.17.26355900 medRxiv
Show abstract

ABSTRACT: Most breast cancer prediction studies skip calibration reporting entirely. Fewer still examine calibration by demographic subgroup. Predicted probabilities that are systematically off for specific racial or gender groups produce biased clinical decisions, and aggregate statistics will not catch that. Objective: To introduce the Demographic Calibration Gap Score (DCGS), a metric that measures how much calibration error varies across demographic subgroups, and to show how it performs across five classifiers, four calibration conditions, and two datasets. Methods: Five classifiers were trained on the Wisconsin Diagnostic Breast Cancer dataset (n=569) and evaluated on a breast cancer cohort from MIMIC-IV (n=1,316). Three global calibration methods were applied: no calibration, Platt scaling, and isotonic regression. A fourth condition, subgroup-targeted Platt scaling, was applied to the MIMIC cohort. DCGS was computed as across racial and gender subgroups, with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals. Conformal prediction coverage and Demographic Coverage Gap (DCG) were reported. Results: On Wisconsin, all five models achieved AUROC above 0.98 and ECE below 0.12. Performance fell sharply on the MIMIC external cohort: AUROC dropped to 0.45-0.57 for base and globally calibrated variants, confirming distributional shift. DCGS exceeded the 0.05 clinical significance threshold in 28 of 40 model-calibration combinations on the race axis. Neither global Platt nor isotonic calibration reliably reduced DCGS below that threshold. Conformal coverage collapsed to roughly 25% on MIMIC, and racial DCG exceeded 0.15 for all 20 model-variant combinations. Conclusions: Reducing population-level ECE through global recalibration does not reliably close demographic calibration gaps. DCGS gives researchers a direct, standardized way to detect and report those disparities. Code and the DCGS computation library are released as open-source Python under the MIT License.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.9%
2
BMC Medical Research Methodology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.4%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 28%
5.6%
4
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.1%
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 29%
3.5%
6
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.3%
7
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.2%
8
npj Breast Cancer
23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
9
European Journal of Cancer
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
50% of probability mass above
10
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
11
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
12
Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
13
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
14
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
15
BMC Medical Genomics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
16
Annals of Internal Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
17
JAMIA Open
42 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
18
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
19
Cancer Medicine
26 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.5%
20
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.5%
21
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.4%
22
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
23
International Journal of Medical Informatics
26 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.1%
24
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
25
Biostatistics
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
26
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
27
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
28
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
31 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
29
Medical Decision Making
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
30
British Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%