Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36601036›Full record

ArticleProceedings of machine learning research2022

Imputation Strategies Under Clinical Presence: Impact on Algorithmic Fairness.

Vincent Jeanselme, Maria De-Arteaga, Zhe Zhang, Jessica Barrett, Brian Tom

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Vincent JeanselmeMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Maria De-Arteaga *McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA.
Zhe Zhang *Rady School of Management, University of California, San Diego, USA.
Jessica BarrettMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Brian TomMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Optimizing Recovery prediction after Cardiac Arrest (ORCA)R01NS124642 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Jonathan Elmer · 2022 to 2026
$3.2M
Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/2Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/5NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS124642
6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical PresenceFairnessImputation

Identifiers

PMID36601036
PMCPMC7614014

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.