Evaluating accuracy and fairness of clinical decision support algorithms when health care resources are limited

Objective

Guidance on how to evaluate accuracy and algorithmic fairness across subgroups is missing for clinical models that flag patients for an intervention but when health care resources to administer that intervention are limited. We aimed to propose a framework of metrics that would fit this specific use case.

Methods

We evaluated the following metrics and applied them to a Veterans Health Administration clinical model that flags patients for intervention who are at risk of overdose or a suicidal event among outpatients who were prescribed opioids (N = 405,817): Receiver – Operating Characteristic and area under the curve, precision – recall curve, calibration – reliability curve, false positive rate, false negative rate, and false omission rate. In addition, we developed a new approach to visualize false positives and false negatives that we named ‘per true positive bars.’ We demonstrate the utility of these metrics to our use case for three cohorts of patients at the highest risk (top 0.5 %, 1.0 %, and 5.0 %) by evaluating algorithmic fairness across the following age groups: <=30, 31–50, 51–65, and >65 years old.

Results

Metrics that allowed us to assess group differences more clearly were the false positive rate, false negative rate, false omission rate, and the new ‘per true positive bars’. Metrics with limited utility to our use case were the Receiver – Operating Characteristic and area under the curve, the calibration – reliability curve, and the precision – recall curve.

Conclusion

There is no “one size fits all” approach to model performance monitoring and bias analysis. Our work informs future researchers and clinicians who seek to evaluate accuracy and fairness of predictive models that identify patients to intervene on in the context of limited health care resources. In terms of ease of interpretation and utility for our use case, the new ‘per true positive bars’ may be the most intuitive to a range of stakeholders and facilitates choosing a threshold that allows weighing false positives against false negatives, which is especially important when predicting severe adverse events.