Cited by 164Ethics and Social Impacts of AIMachine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

An empirical characterization of fair machine learning for clinical risk prediction

Open access
Pfohl, Stephen R., Foryciarz, Agata, Shah, Nigam H.·2021·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

The use of machine learning to guide clinical decision making has the potential to worsen existing health disparities. Several recent works frame the problem as that of algorithmic fairness, a framework that has attracted considerable attention and criticism. However, the appropriateness of this framework is unclear due to both ethical as well as technical considerations, the latter of which include trade-offs between measures of fairness and model performance that are not well-understood for predictive models of clinical outcomes. To inform the ongoing debate, we conduct an empirical study to characterize the impact of penalizing group fairness violations on an array of measures of model performance and group fairness. We repeat the analysis across multiple observational healthcare databases, clinical outcomes, and sensitive attributes. We find that procedures that penalize differences between the distributions of predictions across groups induce nearly-universal degradation of multiple performance metrics within groups. On examining the secondary impact of these procedures, we observe heterogeneity of the effect of these procedures on measures of fairness in calibration and ranking across experimental conditions. Beyond the reported trade-offs, we emphasize that analyses of algorithmic fairness in healthcare lack the contextual grounding and causal awareness necessary to reason about the mechanisms that lead to health disparities, as well as about the potential of algorithmic fairness methods to counteract those mechanisms. In light of these limitations, we encourage researchers building predictive models for clinical use to step outside the algorithmic fairness frame and engage critically with the broader sociotechnical context surrounding the use of machine learning in healthcare.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103621

Cites

133 of 133 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • PD-ai models use unstructured information such as gender, sex, ethnicity, BMI, medical history, and medical prescription as input for outcome prediction.

    “Unstructured information such as gender, sex, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), medical history, and medical prescription is utilized as the input for outcome prediction in PD-ai models [92,111].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [38]Agarwal A, Beygelzimer A, Dudik M, Langford J, Wallach H, A reductions approach to fair classification, in: International Conference on Machine Learning, 2018, pp. 60– 69.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pfohl, S. R., Foryciarz, A., & Shah, N. H.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Pfohl, Stephen R.
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-01
Volume
113
Pages
103621
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3043023066
Cited by
164
References
133
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2
FWCI
22.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (DGE-1656518)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
algorithmic fairness, clinical risk prediction, health disparities, fairness-performance trade-off, ranking fairness, sensitive attributes, clinical decision support
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Delivery of Health Care, Empirical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review