Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39085344›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

A novel approach for assessing fairness in deployed machine learning algorithms.

Shahadat Uddin, Haohui Lu, Ashfaqur Rahman, Junbin Gao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Shahadat UddinSchool of Project Management, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Sydney, Forest Lodge, Camperdown, NSW, 2037, Australia. shahadat.uddin@sydney.edu.au.
Haohui LuSchool of Project Management, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Sydney, Forest Lodge, Camperdown, NSW, 2037, Australia.
Ashfaqur RahmanCSIRO Data61, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Junbin GaoDiscipline of Business Analytics, The University of Sydney Business School, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fairness in machine learning (ML) emerges as a critical concern as AI systems increasingly influence diverse aspects of society, from healthcare decisions to legal judgments. Many studies show evidence of unfair ML outcomes. However, the current body of literature lacks a statistically validated approach that can evaluate the fairness of a deployed ML algorithm against a dataset. A novel evaluation approach is introduced in this research based on k-fold cross-validation and statistical t-tests to assess the fairness of ML algorithms. This approach was exercised across five benchmark datasets using six classical ML algorithms. Considering four fair ML definitions guided by the current literature, our analysis showed that the same dataset generates a fair outcome for one ML algorithm but an unfair result for another. Such an observation reveals complex, context-dependent fairness issues in ML, complicated further by the varied operational mechanisms of the underlying ML models. Our proposed approach enables researchers to check whether deploying any ML algorithms against a protected attribute within datasets is fair. We also discuss the broader implications of the proposed approach, highlighting a notable variability in its fairness outcomes. Our discussion underscores the need for adaptable fairness definitions and the exploration of methods to enhance the fairness of ensemble approaches, aiming to advance fair ML practices and ensure equitable AI deployment across societal sectors.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMachine LearningHumansFair machine learningFairnessMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID39085344
PMCPMC11291763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.