Fairness in Low Birthweight Predictive Models: Implications of Excluding Race/Ethnicity.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Pub Date : 2025-01-29 DOI:10.1007/s40615-025-02296-x
Clare C Brown, Michael Thomsen, Benjamin C Amick, J Mick Tilford, Keneshia Bryant-Moore, Horacio Gomez-Acevedo
{"title":"Fairness in Low Birthweight Predictive Models: Implications of Excluding Race/Ethnicity.","authors":"Clare C Brown, Michael Thomsen, Benjamin C Amick, J Mick Tilford, Keneshia Bryant-Moore, Horacio Gomez-Acevedo","doi":"10.1007/s40615-025-02296-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>To evaluate algorithmic fairness in low birthweight predictive models.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This 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).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Low 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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>AUC 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":16921,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-025-02296-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: To evaluate algorithmic fairness in low birthweight predictive models.

Study design: This 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).

Methods: Low 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).

Results: AUC 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.

Conclusions: This 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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
5.10%
发文量
263
期刊介绍: Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities reports on the scholarly progress of work to understand, address, and ultimately eliminate health disparities based on race and ethnicity. Efforts to explore underlying causes of health disparities and to describe interventions that have been undertaken to address racial and ethnic health disparities are featured. Promising studies that are ongoing or studies that have longer term data are welcome, as are studies that serve as lessons for best practices in eliminating health disparities. Original research, systematic reviews, and commentaries presenting the state-of-the-art thinking on problems centered on health disparities will be considered for publication. We particularly encourage review articles that generate innovative and testable ideas, and constructive discussions and/or critiques of health disparities.Because the Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities receives a large number of submissions, about 30% of submissions to the Journal are sent out for full peer review.
期刊最新文献
Understanding Coping Strategies and Sociocultural Context in Black Americans' Mental Health. The Intersectionality Between Bi and Multiracial College Students' Self-identification and Their Behaviors-A Pilot Study. Impact of Racial Bias on Providers' Empathic Communication Behaviors with Women of Color in Postpartum Checkup. Correction: Implicit Racial Bias in Evaluation of Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome. Factors Associated with Self-reported COVID-19 Infection and Hospitalization among Patients Seeking Care at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1