41
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Ensuring Fairness in Machine Learning to Advance Health Equity

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="P12">Machine learning is used increasingly in clinical care to improve diagnosis, treatment selection, and health system efficiency. Because machine-learning models learn from historically collected data, populations that have experienced human and structural biases in the past—called <i>protected groups</i>—are vulnerable to harm by incorrect predictions or withholding of resources. This article describes how model design, biases in data, and the interactions of model predictions with clinicians and patients may exacerbate health care disparities. Rather than simply guarding against these harms passively, machine-learning systems should be used proactively to advance health equity. For that goal to be achieved, principles of distributive justice must be incorporated into model design, deployment, and evaluation. The article describes several technical implementations of distributive justice—specifically those that ensure equality in patient outcomes, performance, and resource allocation—and guides clinicians as to when they should prioritize each principle. Machine learning is providing increasingly sophisticated decision support and population-level monitoring, and it should encode principles of justice to ensure that models benefit all patients. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction.

          The c statistic, or area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, achieved popularity in diagnostic testing, in which the test characteristics of sensitivity and specificity are relevant to discriminating diseased versus nondiseased patients. The c statistic, however, may not be optimal in assessing models that predict future risk or stratify individuals into risk categories. In this setting, calibration is as important to the accurate assessment of risk. For example, a biomarker with an odds ratio of 3 may have little effect on the c statistic, yet an increased level could shift estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk for an individual patient from 8% to 24%, which would lead to different treatment recommendations under current Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Accepted risk factors such as lipids, hypertension, and smoking have only marginal impact on the c statistic individually yet lead to more accurate reclassification of large proportions of patients into higher-risk or lower-risk categories. Perfectly calibrated models for complex disease can, in fact, only achieve values for the c statistic well below the theoretical maximum of 1. Use of the c statistic for model selection could thus naively eliminate established risk factors from cardiovascular risk prediction scores. As novel risk factors are discovered, sole reliance on the c statistic to evaluate their utility as risk predictors thus seems ill-advised.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Good intentions are not enough: how informatics interventions can worsen inequality

            Health informatics interventions are designed to help people avoid, recover from, or cope with disease and disability, or to improve the quality and safety of healthcare. Unfortunately, they pose a risk of producing intervention-generated inequalities (IGI) by disproportionately benefiting more advantaged people. In this perspective paper, we discuss characteristics of health-related interventions known to produce IGI, explain why health informatics interventions are particularly vulnerable to this phenomenon, and describe safeguards that can be implemented to improve health equity. We provide examples in which health informatics interventions produced inequality because they were more accessible to, heavily used by, adhered to, or effective for those from socioeconomically advantaged groups. We provide a brief outline of precautions that intervention developers and implementers can take to guard against creating or worsening inequality through health informatics. We conclude by discussing evaluation approaches that will ensure that IGIs are recognized and studied.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Grader Variability and the Importance of Reference Standards for Evaluating Machine Learning Models for Diabetic Retinopathy

              Use adjudication to quantify errors in diabetic retinopathy (DR) grading based on individual graders and majority decision, and to train an improved automated algorithm for DR grading.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Annals of Internal Medicine
                Ann Intern Med
                American College of Physicians
                0003-4819
                December 04 2018
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Google, Mountain View, California, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California (A.R.)
                [2 ]Google, Mountain View, California (M.H., M.D.H., G.C.)
                [3 ]University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois (M.H.C.)
                Article
                10.7326/M18-1990
                6594166
                30508424
                bd703f1d-08fd-4dd2-909d-8ab00662a19b
                © 2018
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article