Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35470133›Full record

ReviewBMJ health & care informatics2022

Investigating for bias in healthcare algorithms: a sex-stratified analysis of supervised machine learning models in liver disease prediction.

Isabel Straw, Honghan Wu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Connected to the cloud at time of death: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2024
    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

2 authors.

Isabel StrawInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK isabelstraw@doctors.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0003-3550
Honghan WuInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_18029Medical Research Council MR/S004149/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe Indian Liver Patient Dataset (ILPD) is used extensively to create algorithms that predict liver disease. Given the existing research describing demographic inequities in liver disease diagnosis and management, these algorithms require scrutiny for potential biases. We address this overlooked issue by investigating ILPD models for sex bias.

methodsFollowing our literature review of ILPD papers, the models reported in existing studies are recreated and then interrogated for bias. We define four experiments, training on sex-unbalanced/balanced data, with and without feature selection. We build random forests (RFs), support vector machines (SVMs), Gaussian Naïve Bayes and logistic regression (LR) classifiers, running experiments 100 times, reporting average results with SD.

resultsWe reproduce published models achieving accuracies of >70% (LR 71.31% (2.37 SD) - SVM 79.40% (2.50 SD)) and demonstrate a previously unobserved performance disparity. Across all classifiers females suffer from a higher false negative rate (FNR). Presently, RF and LR classifiers are reported as the most effective models, yet in our experiments they demonstrate the greatest FNR disparity (RF; -21.02%; LR; -24.07%). DISCUSSION: We demonstrate a sex disparity that exists in published ILPD classifiers. In practice, the higher FNR for females would manifest as increased rates of missed diagnosis for female patients and a consequent lack of appropriate care. Our study demonstrates that evaluating biases in the initial stages of machine learning can provide insights into inequalities in current clinical practice, reveal pathophysiological differences between the male and females, and can mitigate the digitisation of inequalities into algorithmic systems.

conclusionOur findings are important to medical data scientists, clinicians and policy-makers involved in the implementation medical artificial intelligence systems. An awareness of the potential biases of these systems is essential in preventing the digital exacerbation of healthcare inequalities.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceLiver DiseasesAlgorithmsBayes TheoremBiasDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansMaleSupervised Machine LearningArtificial intelligenceBMJ Health InformaticsHealth EquityMachine LearningPublic health informatics

Identifiers

PMID35470133
PMCPMC9039354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.