ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Evaluating and Improving the Performance and Racial Fairness of Algorithms for GFR Estimation.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Data-driven clinical prediction algorithms are used widely by clinicians. Understanding what factors can impact the performance and fairness of data-driven algorithms is an important step towards achieving equitable healthcare. To investigate the impact of modeling choices on the algorithmic performance and fairness, we make use of a case study to build a prediction algorithm for estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) based on the patient's electronic health record (EHR). We compare three distinct approaches for estimating GFR: CKD-EPI equations, epidemiological models, and EHR-based models. For epidemiological models and EHR-based models, four machine learning models of varying computational complexity (i.e., linear regression, support vector machine, random forest regression, and neural network) were compared. Performance metrics included root mean squared error (RMSE), median difference, and the proportion of GFR estimates within 30% of the measured GFR value (P30). Differential performance between non-African American and African American group was used to assess algorithmic fairness with respect to race. Our study showed that the variable race had a negligible effect on error, accuracy, and differential performance. Furthermore, including more relevant clinical features (e.g., common comorbidities of chronic kidney disease) and using more complex machine learning models, namely random forest regression, significantly lowered the estimation error of GFR. However, the difference in performance between African American and non-African American patients did not decrease, where the estimation error for African American patients remained consistently higher than non-African American patients, indicating that more objective patient characteristics should be discovered and included to improve algorithm performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.