Back

Fairness-aware, explainable clinical decision support for opioid use disorder risk stratification: development and internal validation of a dual-layer AI system

Kazgan, M.; Mohammadvand, N.; Cetin, B.

2026-06-26 pain medicine
10.64898/2026.06.23.26356401 medRxiv
Show abstract

Opioid use disorder (OUD) remains a leading cause of preventable death in the United States, yet the tools used to assess OUD risk rely on episodic self-report, produce binary output, and exhibit documented performance disparities across demographic groups that can widen existing inequities in care. Machine-learning models for OUD risk are seldom evaluated for demographic fairness or designed for the transparency clinicians need to trust and act on them. We present a fairness-aware, explainable clinical decision support system for four-tier OUD risk stratification, developed and internally validated on a large electronic health record-derived cohort accessed via Mayo Clinic Platform_Discover. The system pairs an XGBoost classifier with a transparent Clinical Rules Engine that attributes risk across six clinical domains, providing clinician-interpretable explanations alongside each prediction. To address demographic disparity directly, we applied an iterative bias-mitigation strategy combining age-balanced resampling, removal of race as a model input, and cost-sensitive reweighting, and measured its effect using group-fairness metrics (demographic parity, equal opportunity, equalized odds, and calibration within groups). On a held-out internal test set, mitigation reduced the White-Black gap in high-risk detection from 30.3 to 7.4 percentage points (a 76% relative reduction) and the age-based accuracy gap from 6.6 to 2.7 percentage points (59% reduction), raising high-risk detection for Black patients from 58.3% to 75.0%, at a cost of fewer than two percentage points of overall accuracy; gender differences remained below three points. The system was independently qualified through Mayo Clinic Platform_Solutions Studio. This work offers an implementable, transparent blueprint for operationalizing fairness and explainability in clinical AI for high-risk prescribing, with external and prospective validation as the clear next steps.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
34.9%
2
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
12.1%
3
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
5.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.2%
5
JAMIA Open
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.1%
6
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 34%
4.1%
7
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.1%
8
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
47 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 29%
3.5%
10
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.2%
11
Clinical and Translational Science
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
12
International Journal of Medical Informatics
26 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
13
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
14
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 64%
0.9%
15
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
16
Schizophrenia
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
17
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 38%
0.6%
18
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%
19
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.6%
20
JMIR Medical Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
21
Psychological Medicine
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%