Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35396247›Full record

ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2022

Evaluating algorithmic fairness in the presence of clinical guidelines: the case of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk estimation.

Agata Foryciarz, Stephen R Pfohl, Birju Patel, Nigam Shah

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Developing a Research Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Agata ForyciarzDepartment of Computer Science, Stanford University School of Engineering, Stanford, California, USA agataf@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8968-5805
Stephen R PfohlStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Birju PatelStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Nigam ShahStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9385-7158
Stanford University · US

Funding

Applying statistical learning tools to personalize cardiovascular treatmentR01HL144555 · NHLBI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SHAH, NIGAM H · 2019 to 2022
$3.0M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL144555
6 · The paper itself

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

AtherosclerosisCardiologyCardiovascular DiseasesHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsAmerican Heart AssociationHumansUnited StatesHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsBMJ Health Informaticsclinicaldecision support systemshealth equitymachine learningmedical informatics

Identifiers

PMID35396247
PMCPMC8996004
OpenAlexW4225467542

What OpenQuestion holds

Texttitle and abstract
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.