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

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Pub Date : 2026-04-01 Epub 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":"835-844"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12304234/pdf/","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":"2025/1/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","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
低出生体重预测模型的公平性:排除种族/民族的影响。
背景:评估低出生体重预测模型的算法公平性。研究设计:本研究分析保险索赔(n = 9,990,990;2013-2021年)与出生证明相关联(n = 173,035;2014-2021),来自阿肯色州所有纳税人索赔数据库(APCD)。方法:低出生体重(结果:与白人相比,黑人和亚洲人的AUC得分较低(表现不佳)。在表现最好的模型(即GMB)中,黑人(0.718 [95% CI: 0.705-0.732])和亚洲人(0.655 [95% CI: 0.582-0.728])种群的AUC得分低于白人个体(0.764 [95% CI: 0.754-0.775])的AUC得分。使用AUC测量的模型性能在包含和排除种族/民族的模型中具有可比性;然而,敏感性(即,在实际低出生体重的人中,正确预测为“低出生体重”的记录的百分比)较低,校准较弱,这表明在排除种族/民族因素后,对黑人个体的预测不足。结论:本研究发现,种族盲模型导致对黑人群体的预测不足和算法性能降低,使用灵敏度和校准进行测量。这种预测不足可能不公平地减少减少围产期保健不平等所需的资源分配。人口健康管理计划应仔细考虑预测模型和相关资源分配决策中的算法公平性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Outcomes After Traumatic Brain Injury Surgery: Investigating Racial Disparities. Association of Preferred Language and Race with Perioperative Oral Midazolam Administration in Pediatric Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Developing an Intergenerational Model of Structural Racism Exposure among Women in Black Families in South Carolina, 1989-2020. Measurement Equivalence Across Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Intersectional Identity for the Perceived Discrimination Scale Among Middle-School-Aged Black, Latinx, and White Youth: Findings From the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study. Examining the Role of Racial and Neighborhood Context in Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: A Multilevel Analysis.
×
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:604180095
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