ArticleOphthalmology science
The Impact of Race, Ethnicity, and Sex on Fairness in Artificial Intelligence for Glaucoma Prediction Models.
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Critical appraisal of fairness metrics for artificial intelligence-based clinical prediction models: a scoping review.The Lancet. Digital health · 2026Article
- Improving Fairness and Mitigating Bias in Multicenter Electronic Health Records Models to Predict Glaucoma Outcomes.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- A systematic review of AI for predicting glaucoma progression: challenges and recommendations towards clinical implementation.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Global research status in the treatment of glaucoma: a systematic bibliometric analysis.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- A Comparative Study Between Clinical Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) Analysis and Artificial Intelligence-Based Quantitative Evaluation in the Diagnosis of Diabetic Macular Edema.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Two Machine Learning Models to Economize Glaucoma Screening Programs: An Approach Based on Neural Nets.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Ensemble learning to enhance accurate identification of patients with glaucoma using electronic health records.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Letter to the Editor: Equitable Deep Learning for Diabetic Retinopathy Detection Using Multidimensional Retinal Imaging With Fair Adaptive Scaling.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Applying an Agile Science Roadmap to Integrate and Evaluate Ethical Frameworks Throughout the Lifecycle and Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in the Intensive Care Unit.Critical care nursing clinics of North America · 2025Review
- Standardization and accuracy of race and ethnicity data: Equity implications for medical AI.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Advances in the application of artificial intelligence in ophthalmic education and clinical training.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Relative Fat Mass and Physical Indices as Predictors of Gallstone Formation: Insights From Machine Learning and Logistic Regression.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Multicenter evaluation of machine and deep learning methods to predict glaucoma surgical outcomes.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Deep Learning with Disc Photos or OCT Scans in Glaucoma Detection.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Despite advances in artificial intelligence (AI) in glaucoma prediction, most works lack multicenter focus and do not consider fairness concerning sex, race, or ethnicity. This study aims to examine the impact of these sensitive attributes on developing fair AI models that predict glaucoma progression to necessitating incisional glaucoma surgery. Design: Database study. Participants: Thirty-nine thousand ninety patients with glaucoma, as identified by International Classification of Disease codes from 7 academic eye centers participating in the Sight OUtcomes Research Collaborative. Methods: We developed XGBoost models using 3 approaches: (1) excluding sensitive attributes as input features, (2) including them explicitly as input features, and (3) training separate models for each group. Model input features included demographic details, diagnosis codes, medications, and clinical information (intraocular pressure, visual acuity, etc.), from electronic health records. The models were trained on patients from 5 sites (N = 27 999) and evaluated on a held-out internal test set (N = 3499) and 2 external test sets consisting of N = 1550 and N = 2542 patients. Main Outcomes and Measures: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and equalized odds on the test set and external sites. Results: Six thousand six hundred eighty-two (17.1%) of 39 090 patients underwent glaucoma surgery with a mean age of 70.1 (standard deviation 14.6) years, 54.5% female, 62.3% White, 22.1% Black, and 4.7% Latinx/Hispanic. We found that not including the sensitive attributes led to better classification performance (AUROC: 0.77-0.82) but worsened fairness when evaluated on the internal test set. However, on external test sites, the opposite was true: including sensitive attributes resulted in better classification performance (AUROC: external #1 - [0.73-0.81], external #2 - [0.67-0.70]), but varying degrees of fairness for sex and race as measured by equalized odds. Conclusions: Artificial intelligence models predicting whether patients with glaucoma progress to surgery demonstrated bias with respect to sex, race, and ethnicity. The effect of sensitive attribute inclusion and exclusion on fairness and performance varied based on internal versus external test sets. Prior to deployment, AI models should be evaluated for fairness on the target population. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.