确定结直肠癌切除术后再入院高风险患者的预测模型偏差。

IF 3.3 Q2 ONCOLOGY JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1200/CCI.23.00194
Mary M Lucas, Mario Schootman, Jonathan A Laryea, Sonia T Orcutt, Chenghui Li, Jun Ying, Jennifer A Rumpel, Christopher C Yang
{"title":"确定结直肠癌切除术后再入院高风险患者的预测模型偏差。","authors":"Mary M Lucas, Mario Schootman, Jonathan A Laryea, Sonia T Orcutt, Chenghui Li, Jun Ying, Jennifer A Rumpel, Christopher C Yang","doi":"10.1200/CCI.23.00194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Machine learning algorithms are used for predictive modeling in medicine, but studies often do not evaluate or report on the potential biases of the models. Our purpose was to develop clinical prediction models for readmission after surgery in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and to examine their potential for racial bias.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used the 2012-2020 American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Participant Use File and Targeted Colectomy File. Patients were categorized into four race groups - White, Black or African American, Other, and Unknown/Not Reported. Potential predictive features were identified from studies of risk factors of 30-day readmission in CRC patients. We compared four machine learning-based methods - logistic regression (LR), multilayer perceptron (MLP), random forest (RF), and XGBoost (XGB). Model bias was assessed using false negative rate (FNR) difference, false positive rate (FPR) difference, and disparate impact.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In all, 112,077 patients were included, 67.2% of whom were White, 9.2% Black, 5.6% Other race, and 18% with race not recorded. There were significant differences in the AUROC, FPR and FNR between race groups across all models. Notably, patients in the 'Other' race category had higher FNR compared to Black patients in all but the XGB model, while Black patients had higher FPR than White patients in some models. Patients in the 'Other' category consistently had the lowest FPR. Applying the 80% rule for disparate impact, the models consistently met the threshold for unfairness for the 'Other' race category.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Predictive models for 30-day readmission after colorectal surgery may perform unequally for different race groups, potentially propagating to inequalities in delivery of care and patient outcomes if the predictions from these models are used to direct care.</p>","PeriodicalId":51626,"journal":{"name":"JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics","volume":"8 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11741203/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bias in Prediction Models to Identify Patients With Colorectal Cancer at High Risk for Readmission After Resection.\",\"authors\":\"Mary M Lucas, Mario Schootman, Jonathan A Laryea, Sonia T Orcutt, Chenghui Li, Jun Ying, Jennifer A Rumpel, Christopher C Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/CCI.23.00194\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Machine learning algorithms are used for predictive modeling in medicine, but studies often do not evaluate or report on the potential biases of the models. Our purpose was to develop clinical prediction models for readmission after surgery in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and to examine their potential for racial bias.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used the 2012-2020 American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Participant Use File and Targeted Colectomy File. Patients were categorized into four race groups - White, Black or African American, Other, and Unknown/Not Reported. Potential predictive features were identified from studies of risk factors of 30-day readmission in CRC patients. We compared four machine learning-based methods - logistic regression (LR), multilayer perceptron (MLP), random forest (RF), and XGBoost (XGB). Model bias was assessed using false negative rate (FNR) difference, false positive rate (FPR) difference, and disparate impact.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In all, 112,077 patients were included, 67.2% of whom were White, 9.2% Black, 5.6% Other race, and 18% with race not recorded. There were significant differences in the AUROC, FPR and FNR between race groups across all models. Notably, patients in the 'Other' race category had higher FNR compared to Black patients in all but the XGB model, while Black patients had higher FPR than White patients in some models. Patients in the 'Other' category consistently had the lowest FPR. Applying the 80% rule for disparate impact, the models consistently met the threshold for unfairness for the 'Other' race category.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Predictive models for 30-day readmission after colorectal surgery may perform unequally for different race groups, potentially propagating to inequalities in delivery of care and patient outcomes if the predictions from these models are used to direct care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51626,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11741203/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI.23.00194\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI.23.00194","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:机器学习算法用于医学预测建模,但研究通常不评估或报告模型的潜在偏差。我们的目的是建立结直肠癌(CRC)患者手术后再入院的临床预测模型,并检查其潜在的种族偏见。方法:我们使用2012-2020年美国外科医师学会国家手术质量改进计划(ACS-NSQIP)参与者使用文件和靶向结肠切除术文件。患者被分为四个种族组——白人、黑人或非裔美国人、其他种族和未知/未报道。通过对结直肠癌患者30天再入院危险因素的研究,确定了潜在的预测特征。我们比较了四种基于机器学习的方法——逻辑回归(LR)、多层感知器(MLP)、随机森林(RF)和XGBoost (XGB)。采用假阴性率(FNR)差异、假阳性率(FPR)差异和异类影响评估模型偏差。结果:共纳入112,077例患者,其中67.2%为白人,9.2%为黑人,5.6%为其他种族,18%为未记录种族。各模型的AUROC、FPR、FNR在种族组间差异均有统计学意义。值得注意的是,在除XGB模型外的所有模型中,“其他”种族类别的患者比黑人患者的FPR更高,而在某些模型中,黑人患者的FPR高于白人患者。“其他”类别患者的FPR始终最低。应用差异性影响的80%规则,这些模型始终符合“其他”种族类别的不公平阈值。结论:结直肠手术后30天再入院的预测模型在不同种族群体中可能表现不平等,如果这些模型的预测用于指导护理,可能会导致护理交付和患者预后的不平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Bias in Prediction Models to Identify Patients With Colorectal Cancer at High Risk for Readmission After Resection.

Purpose: Machine learning algorithms are used for predictive modeling in medicine, but studies often do not evaluate or report on the potential biases of the models. Our purpose was to develop clinical prediction models for readmission after surgery in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and to examine their potential for racial bias.

Methods: We used the 2012-2020 American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Participant Use File and Targeted Colectomy File. Patients were categorized into four race groups - White, Black or African American, Other, and Unknown/Not Reported. Potential predictive features were identified from studies of risk factors of 30-day readmission in CRC patients. We compared four machine learning-based methods - logistic regression (LR), multilayer perceptron (MLP), random forest (RF), and XGBoost (XGB). Model bias was assessed using false negative rate (FNR) difference, false positive rate (FPR) difference, and disparate impact.

Results: In all, 112,077 patients were included, 67.2% of whom were White, 9.2% Black, 5.6% Other race, and 18% with race not recorded. There were significant differences in the AUROC, FPR and FNR between race groups across all models. Notably, patients in the 'Other' race category had higher FNR compared to Black patients in all but the XGB model, while Black patients had higher FPR than White patients in some models. Patients in the 'Other' category consistently had the lowest FPR. Applying the 80% rule for disparate impact, the models consistently met the threshold for unfairness for the 'Other' race category.

Conclusion: Predictive models for 30-day readmission after colorectal surgery may perform unequally for different race groups, potentially propagating to inequalities in delivery of care and patient outcomes if the predictions from these models are used to direct care.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.80%
发文量
190
期刊最新文献
CFO: Calibration-Free Odds Bayesian Designs for Dose Finding in Clinical Trials. Patient-Reported Outcomes: Comparing Functional Avoidance and Standard Thoracic Radiation Therapy in Lung Cancer. Advancements in Interoperability: Achieving Anatomic Pathology Reports That Adhere to International Standards and Are Both Human-Readable and Readily Computable. Incorporating Structured and Unstructured Data Sources to Identify and Characterize Hereditary Cancer Testing Among Veterans With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. Leveraging Radiotherapy Data for Precision Oncology: Veterans Affairs Granular Radiotherapy Information Database.
×
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