ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2024
Bias in Prediction Models to Identify Patients With Colorectal Cancer at High Risk for Readmission After Resection.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Algorithmic bias in surgical risk prediction models and its impact on patient safety: a review.Patient safety in surgery · 2026Review
- Machine learning-based multicenter prediction of postoperative sepsis in emergency colon cancer: role of surgical approach and inflammatory markers.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMachine learning algorithms are used for predictive modeling in medicine, but studies often do not evaluate or report on the potential biases of the models. Our purpose was to develop clinical prediction models for readmission after surgery in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and to examine their potential for racial bias.
methodsWe used the 2012-2020 American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Participant Use File and Targeted Colectomy File. Patients were categorized into four race groups - White, Black or African American, Other, and Unknown/Not Reported. Potential predictive features were identified from studies of risk factors of 30-day readmission in CRC patients. We compared four machine learning-based methods - logistic regression (LR), multilayer perceptron (MLP), random forest (RF), and XGBoost (XGB). Model bias was assessed using false negative rate (FNR) difference, false positive rate (FPR) difference, and disparate impact.
resultsIn all, 112,077 patients were included, 67.2% of whom were White, 9.2% Black, 5.6% Other race, and 18% with race not recorded. There were significant differences in the AUROC, FPR and FNR between race groups across all models. Notably, patients in the 'Other' race category had higher FNR compared to Black patients in all but the XGB model, while Black patients had higher FPR than White patients in some models. Patients in the 'Other' category consistently had the lowest FPR. Applying the 80% rule for disparate impact, the models consistently met the threshold for unfairness for the 'Other' race category.
conclusionPredictive models for 30-day readmission after colorectal surgery may perform unequally for different race groups, potentially propagating to inequalities in delivery of care and patient outcomes if the predictions from these models are used to direct care.
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.