Evaluating fairness of machine learning prediction of prolonged wait times in Emergency Department with Interpretable eXtreme gradient boosting.

PLOS digital health Pub Date : 2025-03-20 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000751
Hao Wang, Nethra Sambamoorthi, Nathan Hoot, David Bryant, Usha Sambamoorthi
{"title":"Evaluating fairness of machine learning prediction of prolonged wait times in Emergency Department with Interpretable eXtreme gradient boosting.","authors":"Hao Wang, Nethra Sambamoorthi, Nathan Hoot, David Bryant, Usha Sambamoorthi","doi":"10.1371/journal.pdig.0000751","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is essential to evaluate performance and assess quality before applying artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) models to clinical practice. This study utilized ML to predict patient wait times in the Emergency Department (ED), determine model performance accuracies, and conduct fairness evaluations to further assess ethnic disparities in using ML for wait time prediction among different patient populations in the ED. This retrospective observational study included adult patients (age ≥18 years) in the ED (n=173,856 visits) who were assigned an Emergency Severity Index (ESI) level of 3 at triage. Prolonged wait time was defined as waiting time ≥30 minutes. We employed extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) for predicting prolonged wait times. Model performance was assessed with accuracy, recall, precision, F1 score, and false negative rate (FNR). To perform the global and local interpretation of feature importance, we utilized Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) to interpret the output from the XGBoost model. Fairness in ML models were evaluated across sensitive attributes (sex, race and ethnicity, and insurance status) at both subgroup and individual levels. We found that nearly half (48.43%, 84,195) of ED patient visits demonstrated prolonged ED wait times. XGBoost model exhibited moderate accuracy performance (AUROC=0.81). When fairness was evaluated with FNRs, unfairness existed across different sensitive attributes (male vs. female, Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic White, and patients with insurances vs. without insurance). The predicted FNRs were lower among females, Hispanics, and patients without insurance compared to their counterparts. Therefore, XGBoost model demonstrated acceptable performance in predicting prolonged wait times in ED visits. However, disparities arise in predicting patients with different sex, race and ethnicity, and insurance status. To enhance the utility of ML model predictions in clinical practice, conducting performance assessments and fairness evaluations are crucial.</p>","PeriodicalId":74465,"journal":{"name":"PLOS digital health","volume":"4 3","pages":"e0000751"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11925291/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000751","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is essential to evaluate performance and assess quality before applying artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) models to clinical practice. This study utilized ML to predict patient wait times in the Emergency Department (ED), determine model performance accuracies, and conduct fairness evaluations to further assess ethnic disparities in using ML for wait time prediction among different patient populations in the ED. This retrospective observational study included adult patients (age ≥18 years) in the ED (n=173,856 visits) who were assigned an Emergency Severity Index (ESI) level of 3 at triage. Prolonged wait time was defined as waiting time ≥30 minutes. We employed extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) for predicting prolonged wait times. Model performance was assessed with accuracy, recall, precision, F1 score, and false negative rate (FNR). To perform the global and local interpretation of feature importance, we utilized Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) to interpret the output from the XGBoost model. Fairness in ML models were evaluated across sensitive attributes (sex, race and ethnicity, and insurance status) at both subgroup and individual levels. We found that nearly half (48.43%, 84,195) of ED patient visits demonstrated prolonged ED wait times. XGBoost model exhibited moderate accuracy performance (AUROC=0.81). When fairness was evaluated with FNRs, unfairness existed across different sensitive attributes (male vs. female, Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic White, and patients with insurances vs. without insurance). The predicted FNRs were lower among females, Hispanics, and patients without insurance compared to their counterparts. Therefore, XGBoost model demonstrated acceptable performance in predicting prolonged wait times in ED visits. However, disparities arise in predicting patients with different sex, race and ethnicity, and insurance status. To enhance the utility of ML model predictions in clinical practice, conducting performance assessments and fairness evaluations are crucial.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluating fairness of machine learning prediction of prolonged wait times in Emergency Department with Interpretable eXtreme gradient boosting. Leveraging social media data to study disease and treatment characteristics of Hodgkin's lymphoma Using Natural Language Processing methods. Evaluating knowledge fusion models on detecting adverse drug events in text. Maternal information-seeking on pregnancy-induced hypertension and associated factors among pregnant women, in low resource country, A cross-sectional study design. What makes clinical machine learning fair? A practical ethics framework.
×
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