Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36942183›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

Racial Equity in Healthcare Machine Learning: Illustrating Bias in Models With Minimal Bias Mitigation.

Michael Barton, Mahmoud Hamza, Borna Guevel

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

3 authors.

Michael BartonMedicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Mahmoud HamzaQuantitative Methods, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, USA.
Borna GuevelQuantitative Methods, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective While the potential of machine learning (ML) in healthcare to positively impact human health continues to grow, the potential for inequity in these methods must be assessed. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the presence of racial bias when five of the most common ML algorithms are used to create models with minimal processing to reduce racial bias. Methods By utilizing a CDC public database, we constructed models for the prediction of healthcare access (binary variable). Using area under the curve (AUC) as our performance metric, we calculated race-specific performance comparisons for each ML algorithm. We bootstrapped our entire analysis 20 times to produce confidence intervals for our AUC performance metrics. Results With the exception of only a few cases, we found that the performance for the White group was, in general, significantly higher than that of the other racial groups across all ML algorithms. Additionally, we found that the most accurate algorithm in our modeling was Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) followed by random forest, naive Bayes, support vector machine (SVM), and k-nearest neighbors (KNN). Conclusion Our study illustrates the predictive perils of incorporating minimal racial bias mitigation in ML models, resulting in predictive disparities by race. This is particularly concerning in the setting of evidence for limited bias mitigation in healthcare-related ML. There needs to be more conversation, research, and guidelines surrounding methods for racial bias assessment and mitigation in healthcare-related ML models, both those currently used and those in development.

Indexed as

data sciencehealthcare technologyhealth equitymachine learningracial bias

Identifiers

PMID36942183
PMCPMC10023594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read271
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.