ArticleProceedings of machine learning research2022
Imputation Strategies Under Clinical Presence: Impact on Algorithmic Fairness.
Article in Proceedings of machine learning research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detecting and Mitigating AI Bias in Health Care: Development and Validation of a Unified Multistage Framework.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Bias and Fairness Across the Healthcare AI Lifecycle: A Clinician-Oriented Review.Balkan medical journal · 2026Review
- Comparing methods for handling missing data in electronic health records for dynamic risk prediction of central-line associated bloodstream infection.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- What makes clinical machine learning fair? A practical ethics framework.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- A scoping review of fair machine learning techniques when using real-world data.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2024Article
- Exploring the inequitable impact of data missingness on fairness in machine learning.IEEE intelligent systemsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biases have marked medical history, leading to unequal care affecting marginalised groups. The patterns of missingness in observational data often reflect these group discrepancies, but the algorithmic fairness implications of group-specific missingness are not well understood. Despite its potential impact, imputation is too often an overlooked preprocessing step. When explicitly considered, attention is placed on overall performance, ignoring how this preprocessing can reinforce groupspecific inequities. Our work questions this choice by studying how imputation affects downstream algorithmic fairness. First, we provide a structured view of the relationship between clinical presence mechanisms and groupspecific missingness patterns. Then, through simulations and real-world experiments, we demonstrate that the imputation choice influences marginalised group performance and that no imputation strategy consistently reduces disparities. Importantly, our results show that current practices may endanger health equity as similarly performing imputation strategies at the population level can affect marginalised groups differently. Finally, we propose recommendations for mitigating inequities that may stem from a neglected step of the machine learning pipeline.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36601036PMC7614014What 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.