ArticleScientific reports2024
A novel approach for assessing fairness in deployed machine learning algorithms.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Consensus-driven feature selection for transparent and robust loan default prediction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.