Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40726749›Full record

ArticleJournal of healthcare informatics research2025

Empirical Comparison of Post-processing Debiasing Methods for Machine Learning Classifiers in Healthcare.

Vien Ngoc Dang, Víctor M Campello, Jerónimo Hernández-González, Karim Lekadir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of healthcare informatics research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Vien Ngoc DangDepartament de Matemàtiques i Informàtica, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Víctor M CampelloDepartament de Matemàtiques i Informàtica, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Jerónimo Hernández-GonzálezDepartament d'Informàtica, Matemàtica Aplicada i Estadística, Universitat de Girona, Girona, Spain.
Karim LekadirDepartament de Matemàtiques i Informàtica, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning classifiers in healthcare tend to reproduce or exacerbate existing health disparities due to inherent biases in training data. This relevant issue has brought the attention of researchers in both healthcare and other domains, proposing techniques that deal with it in different stages of the machine learning process. Post-processing methods adjust model predictions to ensure fairness without interfering in the learning process nor requiring access to the original training data, preserving privacy and enabling the application to any trained model. This study rigorously compares state-of-the-art debiasing methods within the family of post-processing techniques across a wide range of synthetic and real-world (healthcare) datasets, by means of different performance and fairness metrics. Our experiments reveal the strengths and weaknesses of each method, examining the trade-offs between group fairness and predictive performance, as well as among different notions of group fairness. Additionally, we analyze the impact on untreated attributes to ensure overall bias mitigation. Our comprehensive evaluation provides insights into how these debiasing methods can be optimally implemented in healthcare settings to balance accuracy and fairness. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41666-025-00196-7.

Indexed as

Algorithmic biasFairnessHealthcareMachine learning classifiersPost-processing

Identifiers

PMID40726749
PMCPMC12290158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.