Cited by 43Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in Healthcare

Emerging algorithmic bias: fairness drift as the next dimension of model maintenance and sustainability

Open access
Davis, Sharon E, Dorn, Chad, Park, Daniel J, Matheny, Michael E·2025·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Objectives: While performance drift of clinical prediction models is well-documented, the potential for algorithmic biases to emerge post-deployment has had limited characterization. A better understanding of how temporal model performance may shift across subpopulations is required to incorporate fairness drift into model maintenance strategies. Materials and Methods: We explore fairness drift in a national population over 11 years, with and without model maintenance aimed at sustaining population-level performance. We trained random forest models predicting 30-day post-surgical readmission, mortality, and pneumonia using 2013 data from US Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. We evaluated performance quarterly from 2014 to 2023 by self-reported race and sex. We estimated discrimination, calibration, and accuracy, and operationalized fairness using metric parity measured as the gap between disadvantaged and advantaged groups. Results: Our cohort included 1 739 666 surgical cases. We observed fairness drift in both the original and temporally updated models. Model updating had a larger impact on overall performance than fairness gaps. During periods of stable fairness, updating models at the population level increased, decreased, or did not impact fairness gaps. During periods of fairness drift, updating models restored fairness in some cases and exacerbated fairness gaps in others. Discussion: This exploratory study highlights that algorithmic fairness cannot be assured through one-time assessments during model development. Temporal changes in fairness may take multiple forms and interact with model updating strategies in unanticipated ways. Conclusion: Equitable and sustainable clinical artificial intelligence deployments will require novel methods to monitor algorithmic fairness, detect emerging bias, and adopt model updates that promote 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 · 10.1093/jamia/ocaf039

Cites

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?

  • Fairness is not only a model-performance issue; it is also shaped by ECG acquisition quality, care setting, access to confirmatory echocardiography, and linkage to disease-specific treatment.

    “Fairness is not only a model-performance issue; it is also shaped by ECG acquisition quality, care setting, access to confirmatory echocardiography, and linkage to disease-specific treatment.”

    From AI-ECG for Echocardiography Triage in Structural Heart Disease: Evidence, Implementation, and Future Directions (2026) · cites this paper as [61]

    The Introduction and Discussion distinguish subgroup fairness from overall model performance and describe fairness drift in evolving clinical environments. But this study concerns surgical risk models; our copy does not support the attributed roles of ECG acquisition quality, care setting, access to confirmatory echocardiography, or linkage to disease-specific treatment. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Uneven performance in gatekeeper use could translate into unequal access to imaging.

    “This issue is especially important for gatekeeper use, where uneven performance could translate into unequal access to imaging.”

    From AI-ECG for Echocardiography Triage in Structural Heart Disease: Evidence, Implementation, and Future Directions (2026) · cites this paper as [61]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says differences in model accuracy between subpopulations can discriminate in access to care. That supports the proposed consequence of uneven performance, but the paper does not establish it specifically for gatekeeper use or access to imaging; its Discussion concerns surgical-risk tools. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 26 · Cited by 43

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. [3]Verma S, Rubin J. Fairness definitions explained. In: ACM/IEEE International Workshop on Software Fairness, Gothenburg, Sweden. Association for Computing Machinery; 2018: 1- 7.
  2. [5]Pfohl SR, Foryciarz A, Shah NH. An empirical characterization of fair machine learning for clinical risk prediction. J Biomed Inform. 2021; 113: 103621. 10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103621 33220494 PMC7871979 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [6]Beutel A, Chen J, Doshi T, et al Putting fairness principles into practice: challenges, metrics, and improvements. In: AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Honolulu, HI, USA. Association for Computing Machinery; 2019: 453- 459.
  4. [7]Bellamy RK, Dey K, Hind M, et al AI Fairness 360: an extensible toolkit for detecting and mitigating algorithmic bias. IBM J Res Dev. 2019; 63: 4:1-4:15.
  5. [8]Barda N, Yona G, Rothblum GN, et al Addressing bias in prediction models by improving subpopulation calibration. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021; 28: 549- 558. 10.1093/jamia/ocaa283 33236066 PMC7936516 · DOI
  6. [11]Parikh RB, Zhang Y, Kolla L, et al Performance drift in a mortality prediction algorithm among patients with cancer during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2023; 30: 348- 354. 10.1093/jamia/ocac221 36409991 PMC9846686 · DOI
  7. [12]Lacson R, Eskian M, Licaros A, Kapoor N, Khorasani R. Machine learning model drift: predicting diagnostic imaging follow-up as a case example. J Am Coll Radiol. 2022; 19: 1162- 1169. 10.1016/j.jacr.2022.05.030 35981636 PMC12790260 · DOI
  8. [17]Davis SE, Lasko TA, Chen G, Matheny ME. Calibration drift among regression and machine learning models for hospital mortality. In: Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Symposium, Washington DC. American Medical Informatics Association; 2017. PMC5977580 29854127
  9. [18]Minne L, Eslami S, de Keizer N, de Jonge E, de Rooij SE, Abu-Hanna A. Statistical process control for monitoring standardized mortality ratios of a classification tree model. Meth Inform Med. 2012; 51: 353- 358. 22773038
  10. [19]Davis SE, Brown JR, Dorn C, Westerman D, Solomon RJ, Matheny ME. Maintaining a national acute kidney injury risk prediction model to support local quality benchmarking. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2022; 15: e008635. 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.121.008635 35959674 PMC9388604 · DOI
  11. [22]Bilimoria KY, Liu Y, Paruch JL, et al Development and evaluation of the universal ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator: a decision aid and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2013; 217: 833- 842.e3. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.07.385 24055383 PMC3805776 · DOI
  12. [24]Cohen ME, Ko CY, Bilimoria KY, et al Optimizing ACS NSQIP modeling for evaluation of surgical quality and risk: patient risk adjustment, procedure mix adjustment, shrinkage adjustment, and surgical focus. J Am Coll Surg. 2013; 217: 336- 346.e1. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.02.027 23628227 · DOI · Paper page
  13. [25]Liu Y, Ko CY, Hall BL, Cohen ME. American College of Surgeons NSQIP Risk Calculator Accuracy using a machine learning algorithm compared with regression. J Am Coll Surg. 2023; 236: 1024- 1030. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000556 36728295 · DOI
  14. [27]Davis SE, Greevy RA Jr, Lasko TA, Walsh CG, Matheny ME. Detection of calibration drift in clinical prediction models to inform model updating. J Biomed Inform. 2020; 112: 103611. 10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103611 33157313 PMC8627243 · DOI · Paper page
  15. [28]Davis SE, Greevy RA, Fonnesbeck C, Lasko TA, Walsh CG, Matheny ME. A nonparametric updating method to correct clinical prediction model drift. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019; 26: 1448- 1457. 10.1093/jamia/ocz127 31397478 PMC6857513 · DOI
  16. [29]Ricci Lara MA, Echeveste R, Ferrante E. Addressing fairness in artificial intelligence for medical imaging. Nat Commun. 2022; 13: 4581. 10.1038/s41467-022-32186-3 35933408 PMC9357063 · DOI
  17. [30]Pfohl S, Xu Y, Foryciarz A, Ignatiadis N, Genkins J, Shah N. Net benefit, calibration, threshold selection, and training objectives for algorithmic fairness in healthcare. In: ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Association for Computing Machinery; 2022: 1039- 1052.

Authors
Davis, S. E., Dorn, C., Park, D. J., & Matheny, M. E.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
  • Veterans Health Administration (US)
Corresponding author
Davis, Sharon E
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2025-03-13
Volume
32
Issue
5
Pages
845-854
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W4408405690
Cited by
43
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 9
FWCI
44.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50HD103537)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
algorithmic bias, model maintenance, clinical prediction model, algorithmic fairness, model calibration, discrimination, postoperative mortality, pneumonia prediction, racial and sex disparities, veterans
MeSH terms
Aged, Algorithms, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Readmission, United States, Models, Statistical, Bias

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