ArticleJournal of racial and ethnic health disparities2026
Fairness in Low Birthweight Predictive Models: Implications of Excluding Race/Ethnicity.
Article in Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities, 2026. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextTo evaluate algorithmic fairness in low birthweight predictive models. STUDY
designThis study analyzed insurance claims (n = 9,990,990; 2013-2021) linked with birth certificates (n = 173,035; 2014-2021) from the Arkansas All Payers Claims Database (APCD).
methodsLow birthweight (< 2500 g) predictive models included four approaches (logistic, elastic net, linear discriminate analysis, and gradient boosting machines [GMB]) with and without racial/ethnic information. Model performance was assessed overall, among Hispanic individuals, and among non-Hispanic White, Black, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and Asian individuals using multiple measures of predictive performance (i.e., AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] scores, calibration, sensitivity, and specificity).
resultsAUC scores were lower (underperformed) for Black and Asian individuals relative to White individuals. In the strongest performing model (i.e., GMB), the AUC scores for Black (0.718 [95% CI: 0.705-0.732]) and Asian (0.655 [95% CI: 0.582-0.728]) populations were lower than the AUC for White individuals (0.764 [95% CI: 0.754-0.775 ]). Model performance measured using AUC was comparable in models that included and excluded race/ethnicity; however, sensitivity (i.e., the percent of records correctly predicted as "low birthweight" among those who actually had low birthweight) was lower and calibration was weaker, suggesting underprediction for Black individuals when race/ethnicity were excluded.
conclusionsThis study found that racially blind models resulted in underprediction and reduced algorithmic performance, measured using sensitivity and calibration, for Black populations. Such under prediction could unfairly decrease resource allocation needed to reduce perinatal health inequities. Population health management programs should carefully consider algorithmic fairness in predictive models and associated resource allocation decisions.
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.