不同的审查和测试不足:临床机器学习中标签偏见的来源。

Trenton Chang, Michael W Sjoding, Jenna Wiens
{"title":"不同的审查和测试不足:临床机器学习中标签偏见的来源。","authors":"Trenton Chang,&nbsp;Michael W Sjoding,&nbsp;Jenna Wiens","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As machine learning (ML) models gain traction in clinical applications, understanding the impact of clinician and societal biases on ML models is increasingly important. While biases can arise in the labels used for model training, the many sources from which these biases arise are not yet well-studied. In this paper, we highlight <i>disparate censorship</i> (<i>i.e.</i>, differences in testing rates across patient groups) as a source of label bias that clinical ML models may amplify, potentially causing harm. Many patient risk-stratification models are trained using the results of clinician-ordered diagnostic and laboratory tests of labels. Patients without test results are often assigned a negative label, which assumes that untested patients do not experience the outcome. Since orders are affected by clinical and resource considerations, testing may not be uniform in patient populations, giving rise to disparate censorship. Disparate censorship in patients of equivalent risk leads to <i>undertesting</i> in certain groups, and in turn, more biased labels for such groups. Using such biased labels in standard ML pipelines could contribute to gaps in model performance across patient groups. Here, we theoretically and empirically characterize conditions in which disparate censorship or undertesting affect model performance across subgroups. Our findings call attention to disparate censorship as a source of label bias in clinical ML models.</p>","PeriodicalId":74504,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of machine learning research","volume":"182 ","pages":"343-390"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10162497/pdf/nihms-1868579.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disparate Censorship & Undertesting: A Source of Label Bias in Clinical Machine Learning.\",\"authors\":\"Trenton Chang,&nbsp;Michael W Sjoding,&nbsp;Jenna Wiens\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As machine learning (ML) models gain traction in clinical applications, understanding the impact of clinician and societal biases on ML models is increasingly important. While biases can arise in the labels used for model training, the many sources from which these biases arise are not yet well-studied. In this paper, we highlight <i>disparate censorship</i> (<i>i.e.</i>, differences in testing rates across patient groups) as a source of label bias that clinical ML models may amplify, potentially causing harm. Many patient risk-stratification models are trained using the results of clinician-ordered diagnostic and laboratory tests of labels. Patients without test results are often assigned a negative label, which assumes that untested patients do not experience the outcome. Since orders are affected by clinical and resource considerations, testing may not be uniform in patient populations, giving rise to disparate censorship. Disparate censorship in patients of equivalent risk leads to <i>undertesting</i> in certain groups, and in turn, more biased labels for such groups. Using such biased labels in standard ML pipelines could contribute to gaps in model performance across patient groups. Here, we theoretically and empirically characterize conditions in which disparate censorship or undertesting affect model performance across subgroups. Our findings call attention to disparate censorship as a source of label bias in clinical ML models.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74504,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of machine learning research\",\"volume\":\"182 \",\"pages\":\"343-390\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10162497/pdf/nihms-1868579.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of machine learning research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of machine learning research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着机器学习(ML)模型在临床应用中的发展,了解临床医生和社会偏见对ML模型的影响变得越来越重要。虽然用于模型训练的标签可能会产生偏差,但这些偏差产生的许多来源尚未得到很好的研究。在本文中,我们强调了不同的审查(即不同患者组的测试率差异)作为临床ML模型可能放大的标签偏差的来源,可能会造成伤害。许多患者风险分层模型是使用临床医生要求的诊断和实验室标签测试的结果来训练的。没有检测结果的患者通常被贴上阴性标签,这意味着未经检测的患者不会经历检测结果。由于订单受临床和资源考虑的影响,在患者群体中检测可能不统一,从而产生不同的审查。对同等风险的患者进行不同的审查导致某些群体的测试不足,反过来,对这些群体的标签更有偏见。在标准ML管道中使用这种有偏差的标签可能会导致不同患者组的模型性能存在差距。在这里,我们从理论上和经验上描述了不同审查或测试不足影响子组模型性能的条件。我们的研究结果引起了人们对临床ML模型中标签偏差来源的不同审查的关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Disparate Censorship & Undertesting: A Source of Label Bias in Clinical Machine Learning.

As machine learning (ML) models gain traction in clinical applications, understanding the impact of clinician and societal biases on ML models is increasingly important. While biases can arise in the labels used for model training, the many sources from which these biases arise are not yet well-studied. In this paper, we highlight disparate censorship (i.e., differences in testing rates across patient groups) as a source of label bias that clinical ML models may amplify, potentially causing harm. Many patient risk-stratification models are trained using the results of clinician-ordered diagnostic and laboratory tests of labels. Patients without test results are often assigned a negative label, which assumes that untested patients do not experience the outcome. Since orders are affected by clinical and resource considerations, testing may not be uniform in patient populations, giving rise to disparate censorship. Disparate censorship in patients of equivalent risk leads to undertesting in certain groups, and in turn, more biased labels for such groups. Using such biased labels in standard ML pipelines could contribute to gaps in model performance across patient groups. Here, we theoretically and empirically characterize conditions in which disparate censorship or undertesting affect model performance across subgroups. Our findings call attention to disparate censorship as a source of label bias in clinical ML models.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Contrastive Learning for Clinical Outcome Prediction with Partial Data Sources. Multi-Source Conformal Inference Under Distribution Shift. DISCRET: Synthesizing Faithful Explanations For Treatment Effect Estimation. Kernel Debiased Plug-in Estimation: Simultaneous, Automated Debiasing without Influence Functions for Many Target Parameters. Adapt and Diffuse: Sample-Adaptive Reconstruction Via Latent Diffusion Models.
×
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