ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2022
Evaluating algorithmic fairness in the presence of clinical guidelines: the case of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk estimation.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies for mitigating artificial intelligence bias in healthcare: a systematic review.JAMIA open · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Peripheral Artery Disease: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association.Circulation. Population health and outcomes · 2026Review
- Language-informed treatment recommendations in psychiatry: bridging the gap in individual predictability.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Role and Use of Race in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Models Related to Health.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Reporting of Fairness Metrics in Clinical Risk Prediction Models Used for Precision Health: Scoping Review.Online journal of public health informatics · 2025Review
- Bias Mitigation in Primary Health Care Artificial Intelligence Models: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Bias Mitigation in Primary Health Care Artificial Intelligence Models: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Clinical Algorithms and the Legacy of Race-Based Correction: Historical Errors, Contemporary Revisions and Equity-Oriented Methodologies for Epidemiologists.Clinical epidemiology · 2025Review
- Developing a Research Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2024Article
- Mitigating Algorithmic Bias in AI-Driven Cardiovascular Imaging for Fairer Diagnostics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Care-Part 2: Applications: JACC Review Topic of the Week.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2024Review
- Use of Artificial Intelligence in Improving Outcomes in Heart Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2024Review
- Health equity assessment of machine learning performance (HEAL): a framework and dermatology AI model case study.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- A scoping review of fair machine learning techniques when using real-world data.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2024Article
- Daly/Cost comparison in the management of peripheral arterial disease at 17 Belgian hospitals.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Age and sex specific thresholds for risk stratification of cardiovascular disease and clinical decision making: prospective open cohort study.BMJ medicine · 2024Article
- Mitigating Racial And Ethnic Bias And Advancing Health Equity In Clinical Algorithms: A Scoping Review.Health affairs (Project Hope) · 2023Article
- Evaluating prediction model performance.Surgery · 2023Article
- Algorithmic fairness in artificial intelligence for medicine and healthcare.Nature biomedical engineering · 2023Review
- Clinical utility gains from incorporating comorbidity and geographic location information into risk estimation equations for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association guidelines on primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) recommend using 10-year ASCVD risk estimation models to initiate statin treatment. For guideline-concordant decision-making, risk estimates need to be calibrated. However, existing models are often miscalibrated for race, ethnicity and sex based subgroups. This study evaluates two algorithmic fairness approaches to adjust the risk estimators (group recalibration and equalised odds) for their compatibility with the assumptions underpinning the guidelines' decision rules.MethodsUsing an updated pooled cohorts data set, we derive unconstrained, group-recalibrated and equalised odds-constrained versions of the 10-year ASCVD risk estimators, and compare their calibration at guideline-concordant decision thresholds.
resultsWe find that, compared with the unconstrained model, group-recalibration improves calibration at one of the relevant thresholds for each group, but exacerbates differences in false positive and false negative rates between groups. An equalised odds constraint, meant to equalise error rates across groups, does so by miscalibrating the model overall and at relevant decision thresholds. DISCUSSION: Hence, because of induced miscalibration, decisions guided by risk estimators learned with an equalised odds fairness constraint are not concordant with existing guidelines. Conversely, recalibrating the model separately for each group can increase guideline compatibility, while increasing intergroup differences in error rates. As such, comparisons of error rates across groups can be misleading when guidelines recommend treating at fixed decision thresholds.
conclusionThe illustrated tradeoffs between satisfying a fairness criterion and retaining guideline compatibility underscore the need to evaluate models in the context of downstream interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.