Demographic Calibration Gaps in Breast Cancer Risk Prediction: Introducing the Demographic Calibration Gap Score
Eniolade, M.
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 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Towards Predicting 30-Day Readmission among Oncology Patients: Identifying Timely and Actionable Risk Factors 94%
- Actionability of Synthetic Data in a Heterogeneous and Rare Healthcare Demographic; Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs) with Cancer 93%
- Using Adversarial Images to Assess the Stability of Deep Learning Models Trained on Diagnostic Images in Oncology 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Modular Clinical Decision Support Networks (MoDN)—Updatable, Interpretable, and Portable Predictions for Evolving Clinical Environments 94%
- Assessing generalizability of an AI-based visual test for cervical cancer screening 94%
- Generalizability Challenges of Mortality Risk Prediction Models: A Retrospective Analysis on a Multi-center Database 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Addressing Label Noise for Electronic Health Records: Insights from Computer Vision for Tabular Data 94%
- Development and Validation of ‘Patient Optimizer’ (POP) Algorithms for Predicting Surgical Risk with Machine Learning 93%
- Equipping Computational Pathology Systems with Artifact Processing Pipelines: A Showcase for Computation and Performance Trade-offs 92%
"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.