Cited by 167Ethics and Social Impacts of AIMachine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

An adversarial training framework for mitigating algorithmic biases in clinical machine learning

Open access
Yang, Jenny, Soltan, Andrew A. S., Eyre, David W., Yang, Yang, Clifton, David A.·2023·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

Machine learning is becoming increasingly prominent in healthcare. Although its benefits are clear, growing attention is being given to how these tools may exacerbate existing biases and disparities. In this study, we introduce an adversarial training framework that is capable of mitigating biases that may have been acquired through data collection. We demonstrate this proposed framework on the real-world task of rapidly predicting COVID-19, and focus on mitigating site-specific (hospital) and demographic (ethnicity) biases. Using the statistical definition of equalized odds, we show that adversarial training improves outcome fairness, while still achieving clinically-effective screening performances (negative predictive values >0.98). We compare our method to previous benchmarks, and perform prospective and external validation across four independent hospital cohorts. Our method can be generalized to any outcomes, models, and definitions of fairness.

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 · 10.1038/s41746-023-00805-y

Cites

43 of 43 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?

  • AI systems can suffer from bias, compounding existing inequities in socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.

    “On the other hand, AI systems can also suffer from bias, compounding existing inequities in socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.”
  • Bias particularly impacts disadvantaged populations, which can be subject to algorithmic predictions that are less accurate or underestimate the need for care.

    “Bias particularly impacts disadvantaged populations, which can be subject to algorithmic predictions that are less accurate or underestimate the need for care.”

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: 7

  1. [6]Hardt M Price E Srebro N Equality of opportunity in supervised learning Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2016 29 3315 3323
  2. [24]Wang, H., Ustun, B., Calmon, F. P. & Harvard, S. E. A. S. Avoiding disparate impact with counterfactual distributions. In NeurIPS Workshop on Ethical, Social and Governance Issues in AI. (2018).
  3. [30]Pleiss G Raghavan M Wu F Kleinberg J Weinberger KQ On fairness and calibration Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2017 30 5680 5689
  4. [32]Menon, A. K. & Williamson, R. C. The cost of fairness in binary classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (pp. 107–118) PMLR. (2018).
  5. [34]Jung, C. et al. An algorithmic framework for fairness elicitation. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.10660 (2019). · arXiv
  6. [36]Kim M Reingold O Rothblum G Fairness through computationally-bounded awareness Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2018 31 4842 4852
  7. [45]Blazer, D. G. & Hernandez, L. M. (Eds.). Genes, behavior, and the social environment: Moving beyond the nature/nurture debate. (2006). 20669442

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, J., Soltan, A. A. S., Eyre, D. W., Yang, Y., & Clifton, D. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
Corresponding author
Yang, Jenny
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2023-03-29
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
55-55
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4361285150
Cited by
159
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 11
FWCI
39.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (0009350)
  • Robertson Foundation
  • University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
  • National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (ACF-2020-13-015)
  • Royal Academy of Engineering
  • University of Oxford
  • European Commission (HORIZON2020, 955681)
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University
  • Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • Medical Research Council (MC_PC_19049)
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
adversarial training, algorithmic bias, machine learning in healthcare, fairness, equalized odds, COVID-19 prediction, ethnic prejudice, health disparities, external validation

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