Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33236066›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2021

Addressing bias in prediction models by improving subpopulation calibration.

Noam Barda, Gal Yona, Guy N Rothblum, Philip Greenland, Morton Leibowitz, Ran Balicer, Eitan Bachmat, Noa Dagan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Longitudinal trajectories of hospitalizations in US older adults with heart failure.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Emerging algorithmic bias: fairness drift as the next dimension of model maintenance and sustainability.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Personalized event prediction for Electronic Health Records.Artificial intelligence in medicine · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Fair admission risk prediction with proportional multicalibration.Proceedings of machine learning research · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Noam BardaClalit Research Institute, Clalit Health Services, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Gal YonaDepartment of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel.
Guy N RothblumDepartment of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel.
Philip GreenlandFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Morton LeibowitzClalit Research Institute, Clalit Health Services, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Ran BalicerClalit Research Institute, Clalit Health Services, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Eitan BachmatDepartment of Computer Science, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheba, Israel.
Noa DaganClalit Research Institute, Clalit Health Services, Tel-Aviv, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo illustrate the problem of subpopulation miscalibration, to adapt an algorithm for recalibration of the predictions, and to validate its performance. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated the calibration of predictions based on the Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) and the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) in the overall population and in subpopulations defined by the intersection of age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and immigration history. We next applied the recalibration algorithm and assessed the change in calibration metrics, including calibration-in-the-large.

results1 021 041 patients were included in the PCE population, and 1 116 324 patients were included in the FRAX population. Baseline overall model calibration of the 2 tested models was good, but calibration in a substantial portion of the subpopulations was poor. After applying the algorithm, subpopulation calibration statistics were greatly improved, with the variance of the calibration-in-the-large values across all subpopulations reduced by 98.8% and 94.3% in the PCE and FRAX models, respectively. DISCUSSION: Prediction models in medicine are increasingly common. Calibration, the agreement between predicted and observed risks, is commonly poor for subpopulations that were underrepresented in the development set of the models, resulting in bias and reduced performance for these subpopulations. In this work, we empirically evaluated an adapted version of the fairness algorithm designed by Hebert-Johnson et al. (2017) and demonstrated its use in improving subpopulation miscalibration.

conclusionA postprocessing and model-independent fairness algorithm for recalibration of predictive models greatly decreases the bias of subpopulation miscalibration and thus increases fairness and equality.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, StatisticalAdultAgedBiasFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsRetrospective StudiesRisk Assessmentmodels, algorithmic fairness, calibration, model bias, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosisPredictive

Identifiers

PMID33236066
PMCPMC7936516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.