ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2025
A Generalized Tool to Assess Algorithmic Fairness in Disease Phenotype Definitions.
Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For evidence from observational studies to be reliable, researchers must ensure that the patient populations of interest are accurately defined. However, disease definitions can be extremely difficult to standardize and implement accurately across different datasets and study requirements. Furthermore, in this context, they must also ensure that populations are represented fairly to accurately reflect populations' various demographic dynamics and to not overgeneralize across non-applicable populations. In this work, we present a generalized tool to assess the fairness of disease definitions by evaluating their implementation across common fairness metrics. Our approach calculates fairness metrics and provides a robust method to examine coarse and strongly intersecting populations across many characteristics. We highlight workflows when working with disease definitions, provide an example analysis using an OMOP CDM patient database, and discuss potential directions for future improvement and research.
Identifiers
40502243PMC12150753What 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.