精确精神病学中的算法公平性:精神病临床高危个体的预测模型分析。

IF 8.7 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY British Journal of Psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1192/bjp.2023.141
Derya Şahin, Lana Kambeitz-Ilankovic, Stephen Wood, Dominic Dwyer, Rachel Upthegrove, Raimo Salokangas, Stefan Borgwardt, Paolo Brambilla, Eva Meisenzahl, Stephan Ruhrmann, Frauke Schultze-Lutter, Rebekka Lencer, Alessandro Bertolino, Christos Pantelis, Nikolaos Koutsouleris, Joseph Kambeitz
{"title":"精确精神病学中的算法公平性:精神病临床高危个体的预测模型分析。","authors":"Derya Şahin, Lana Kambeitz-Ilankovic, Stephen Wood, Dominic Dwyer, Rachel Upthegrove, Raimo Salokangas, Stefan Borgwardt, Paolo Brambilla, Eva Meisenzahl, Stephan Ruhrmann, Frauke Schultze-Lutter, Rebekka Lencer, Alessandro Bertolino, Christos Pantelis, Nikolaos Koutsouleris, Joseph Kambeitz","doi":"10.1192/bjp.2023.141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Computational models offer promising potential for personalised treatment of psychiatric diseases. For their clinical deployment, fairness must be evaluated alongside accuracy. Fairness requires predictive models to not unfairly disadvantage specific demographic groups. Failure to assess model fairness prior to use risks perpetuating healthcare inequalities. Despite its importance, empirical investigation of fairness in predictive models for psychiatry remains scarce.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To evaluate fairness in prediction models for development of psychosis and functional outcome.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using data from the PRONIA study, we examined fairness in 13 published models for prediction of transition to psychosis (<i>n</i> = 11) and functional outcome (<i>n</i> = 2) in people at clinical high risk for psychosis or with recent-onset depression. Using accuracy equality, predictive parity, false-positive error rate balance and false-negative error rate balance, we evaluated relevant fairness aspects for the demographic attributes 'gender' and 'educational attainment' and compared them with the fairness of clinicians' judgements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings indicate systematic bias towards assigning less favourable outcomes to individuals with lower educational attainment in both prediction models and clinicians' judgements, resulting in higher false-positive rates in 7 of 11 models for transition to psychosis. Interestingly, the bias patterns observed in algorithmic predictions were not significantly more pronounced than those in clinicians' predictions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Educational bias was present in algorithmic and clinicians' predictions, assuming more favourable outcomes for individuals with higher educational level (years of education). This bias might lead to increased stigma and psychosocial burden in patients with lower educational attainment and suboptimal psychosis prevention in those with higher educational attainment.</p>","PeriodicalId":9259,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Algorithmic fairness in precision psychiatry: analysis of prediction models in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis.\",\"authors\":\"Derya Şahin, Lana Kambeitz-Ilankovic, Stephen Wood, Dominic Dwyer, Rachel Upthegrove, Raimo Salokangas, Stefan Borgwardt, Paolo Brambilla, Eva Meisenzahl, Stephan Ruhrmann, Frauke Schultze-Lutter, Rebekka Lencer, Alessandro Bertolino, Christos Pantelis, Nikolaos Koutsouleris, Joseph Kambeitz\",\"doi\":\"10.1192/bjp.2023.141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Computational models offer promising potential for personalised treatment of psychiatric diseases. For their clinical deployment, fairness must be evaluated alongside accuracy. Fairness requires predictive models to not unfairly disadvantage specific demographic groups. Failure to assess model fairness prior to use risks perpetuating healthcare inequalities. Despite its importance, empirical investigation of fairness in predictive models for psychiatry remains scarce.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To evaluate fairness in prediction models for development of psychosis and functional outcome.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using data from the PRONIA study, we examined fairness in 13 published models for prediction of transition to psychosis (<i>n</i> = 11) and functional outcome (<i>n</i> = 2) in people at clinical high risk for psychosis or with recent-onset depression. Using accuracy equality, predictive parity, false-positive error rate balance and false-negative error rate balance, we evaluated relevant fairness aspects for the demographic attributes 'gender' and 'educational attainment' and compared them with the fairness of clinicians' judgements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings indicate systematic bias towards assigning less favourable outcomes to individuals with lower educational attainment in both prediction models and clinicians' judgements, resulting in higher false-positive rates in 7 of 11 models for transition to psychosis. Interestingly, the bias patterns observed in algorithmic predictions were not significantly more pronounced than those in clinicians' predictions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Educational bias was present in algorithmic and clinicians' predictions, assuming more favourable outcomes for individuals with higher educational level (years of education). This bias might lead to increased stigma and psychosocial burden in patients with lower educational attainment and suboptimal psychosis prevention in those with higher educational attainment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9259,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Psychiatry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2023.141\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2023.141","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:计算模型为精神疾病的个性化治疗提供了很有前景的潜力。对于他们的临床部署,必须在评估准确性的同时评估公平性。公平性要求预测模型不会对特定人口群体造成不公平的不利影响。在使用之前未能评估模型的公平性有可能使医疗保健不平等现象长期存在。尽管它很重要,但对精神病学预测模型中公平性的实证研究仍然很少。目的:评估精神病发展和功能结果预测模型的公平性。方法:使用PRONIA研究的数据,我们在13个已发表的模型中检验了预测精神病临床高危人群或近期抑郁症患者向精神病转变(n=11)和功能结果(n=2)的公平性。使用准确性平等、预测性平价、假阳性错误率平衡和假阴性错误率平衡,我们评估了人口统计学属性“性别”和“教育程度”的相关公平性方面,并将其与临床医生判断的公平性进行了比较。结果:我们的研究结果表明,在预测模型和临床医生的判断中,系统偏向于将不太好的结果分配给受教育程度较低的个体,导致11个向精神病过渡的模型中有7个模型的假阳性率较高。有趣的是,在算法预测中观察到的偏差模式并不比临床医生的预测更明显。结论:算法和临床医生的预测中存在教育偏见,假设教育水平较高(受教育年限)的人的结果更有利。这种偏见可能会导致受教育程度较低的患者的耻辱感和心理社会负担增加,而受教育程度较高的患者的精神病预防效果不佳。
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
Algorithmic fairness in precision psychiatry: analysis of prediction models in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis.

Background: Computational models offer promising potential for personalised treatment of psychiatric diseases. For their clinical deployment, fairness must be evaluated alongside accuracy. Fairness requires predictive models to not unfairly disadvantage specific demographic groups. Failure to assess model fairness prior to use risks perpetuating healthcare inequalities. Despite its importance, empirical investigation of fairness in predictive models for psychiatry remains scarce.

Aims: To evaluate fairness in prediction models for development of psychosis and functional outcome.

Method: Using data from the PRONIA study, we examined fairness in 13 published models for prediction of transition to psychosis (n = 11) and functional outcome (n = 2) in people at clinical high risk for psychosis or with recent-onset depression. Using accuracy equality, predictive parity, false-positive error rate balance and false-negative error rate balance, we evaluated relevant fairness aspects for the demographic attributes 'gender' and 'educational attainment' and compared them with the fairness of clinicians' judgements.

Results: Our findings indicate systematic bias towards assigning less favourable outcomes to individuals with lower educational attainment in both prediction models and clinicians' judgements, resulting in higher false-positive rates in 7 of 11 models for transition to psychosis. Interestingly, the bias patterns observed in algorithmic predictions were not significantly more pronounced than those in clinicians' predictions.

Conclusions: Educational bias was present in algorithmic and clinicians' predictions, assuming more favourable outcomes for individuals with higher educational level (years of education). This bias might lead to increased stigma and psychosocial burden in patients with lower educational attainment and suboptimal psychosis prevention in those with higher educational attainment.

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
British Journal of Psychiatry
British Journal of Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
1.90%
发文量
184
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Psychiatry (BJPsych) is a renowned international journal that undergoes rigorous peer review. It covers various branches of psychiatry, with a specific focus on the clinical aspects of each topic. Published monthly by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, this journal is dedicated to enhancing the prevention, investigation, diagnosis, treatment, and care of mental illness worldwide. It also strives to promote global mental health. In addition to featuring authoritative original research articles from across the globe, the journal includes editorials, review articles, commentaries on contentious issues, a comprehensive book review section, and a dynamic correspondence column. BJPsych is an essential source of information for psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, and other professionals interested in mental health.
期刊最新文献
Detection of suicidality from medical text using privacy-preserving large language models. Breast cancer risk among women with schizophrenia and association with duration of antipsychotic use: population-based cohort study in South Korea. Equal, equitable or exacerbating inequalities: patterns and predictors of social prescribing referrals in 160 128 UK patients. Apotychiaphobia: should there be a term for fear of miscarriage? Association between dietary fat intake and the risk of Alzheimer's disease: Mendelian randomisation study.
×
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