ArticleThe American journal of managed care2025
Predictive models for low birth weight: a comparative analysis of algorithmic fairness-improving approaches.
Article in The American journal of managed care, 2025. 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
objectiveEvaluating whether common algorithmic fairness-improving approaches can improve low-birth-weight predictive model performance can provide important implications for population health management and health equity. This study aimed to evaluate alternative approaches for improving algorithmic fairness for low-birth-weight predictive models. STUDY
designRetrospective, cross-sectional study of birth certificates linked with medical insurance claims.
methodsBirth certificates (n = 191,943; 2014-2022) were linked with insurance claims (2013-2021) from the Arkansas All-Payer Claims Database to assess alternative approaches for algorithmic fairness in predictive models for low birth weight (< 2500 g). We fit an original model and compared 6 fairness-improving approaches using elastic net models trained and tested with 70/30 balanced random split samples and 10-fold cross validation.
resultsThe original model had lower accuracy (percent predicted correctly) in predicting low birth weight among Black, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, Asian, and unknown racial/ethnic populations relative to White individuals. For Black individuals, accuracy increased with all 6 fairness-improving approaches relative to the original model; however, sensitivity (true-positives correctly predicted as low birth weight) significantly declined, as much as 31% (from 0.824 to 0.565), in 5 of 6 approaches.
conclusionsWhen developing and implementing decision-making algorithms, it is critical that model performance metrics align with management goals for the predictive tool. In our study, fairness-improving models improved accuracy and area under the curve scores for Black individuals but decreased sensitivity and negative predictive value, suggesting that the original model, although unfair, was not improved. Implementation of unfair models for allocating preventive services could perpetuate racial/ethnic inequities by failing to identify individuals most at risk for a low-birth-weight delivery.
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.