ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025
Towards machine learning fairness in classifying multicategory causes of deaths in colorectal or lung cancer patients.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations of Normalization and Regularization with Machine Learning Overfitting in Cross-dataset Classification of Deaths Using Transcriptomic and Clinical Data: A Secondary Analysis of Publicly Available Databases.Journal of clinical and translational pathology · 2026Article
- Fairness analysis of machine learning predictions of aggression in acute psychiatric care.Npj mental health research · 2026Article
- Digital and Artificial Intelligence-based Pathology: Not for Every Laboratory - A Mini-review on the Benefits and Pitfalls of Its Implementation.Journal of clinical and translational pathology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Classification of patient multicategory survival outcomes is important for personalized cancer treatments. Machine learning (ML) algorithms have increasingly been used to inform healthcare decisions, but these models are vulnerable to biases in data collection and algorithm creation. ML models have previously been shown to exhibit racial bias, but their fairness towards patients from different age and sex groups have yet to be studied. Therefore, we compared the multimetric performances of five ML models (random forests, multinomial logistic regression, linear support vector classifier, linear discriminant analysis, and multilayer perceptron) when classifying colorectal cancer patients (n = 589) of various age, sex, and racial groups using The Cancer Genome Atlas data. All five models exhibited biases for these sociodemographic groups. We then repeated the same process on lung adenocarcinoma (n = 515) to validate our findings. Surprisingly, most models tended to perform more poorly overall for the largest sociodemographic groups. Methods to optimize model performance, including testing the model on merged age, sex, or racial groups, and creating a model trained on and used for an individual or merged sociodemographic group, show potential to reduce disparities in model performance for different groups. This is supported by our regression analysis showing associations between model choice and methodology used with reduced performance disparities across demographic subgroups. Notably, these methods may be used to improve ML fairness while avoiding penalizing the model for exhibiting bias and thus sacrificing overall performance.
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.