Cargando…
Evaluating algorithmic fairness in the presence of clinical guidelines: the case of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk estimation
OBJECTIVES: The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association guidelines on primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) recommend using 10-year ASCVD risk estimation models to initiate statin treatment. For guideline-concordant decision-making, risk estim...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8996004/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35396247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100460 |
_version_ | 1784684407475404800 |
---|---|
author | Foryciarz, Agata Pfohl, Stephen R Patel, Birju Shah, Nigam |
author_facet | Foryciarz, Agata Pfohl, Stephen R Patel, Birju Shah, Nigam |
author_sort | Foryciarz, Agata |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association guidelines on primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) recommend using 10-year ASCVD risk estimation models to initiate statin treatment. For guideline-concordant decision-making, risk estimates need to be calibrated. However, existing models are often miscalibrated for race, ethnicity and sex based subgroups. This study evaluates two algorithmic fairness approaches to adjust the risk estimators (group recalibration and equalised odds) for their compatibility with the assumptions underpinning the guidelines’ decision rules. MethodsUsing an updated pooled cohorts data set, we derive unconstrained, group-recalibrated and equalised odds-constrained versions of the 10-year ASCVD risk estimators, and compare their calibration at guideline-concordant decision thresholds. RESULTS: We find that, compared with the unconstrained model, group-recalibration improves calibration at one of the relevant thresholds for each group, but exacerbates differences in false positive and false negative rates between groups. An equalised odds constraint, meant to equalise error rates across groups, does so by miscalibrating the model overall and at relevant decision thresholds. DISCUSSION: Hence, because of induced miscalibration, decisions guided by risk estimators learned with an equalised odds fairness constraint are not concordant with existing guidelines. Conversely, recalibrating the model separately for each group can increase guideline compatibility, while increasing intergroup differences in error rates. As such, comparisons of error rates across groups can be misleading when guidelines recommend treating at fixed decision thresholds. CONCLUSION: The illustrated tradeoffs between satisfying a fairness criterion and retaining guideline compatibility underscore the need to evaluate models in the context of downstream interventions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8996004 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89960042022-04-27 Evaluating algorithmic fairness in the presence of clinical guidelines: the case of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk estimation Foryciarz, Agata Pfohl, Stephen R Patel, Birju Shah, Nigam BMJ Health Care Inform Original Research OBJECTIVES: The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association guidelines on primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) recommend using 10-year ASCVD risk estimation models to initiate statin treatment. For guideline-concordant decision-making, risk estimates need to be calibrated. However, existing models are often miscalibrated for race, ethnicity and sex based subgroups. This study evaluates two algorithmic fairness approaches to adjust the risk estimators (group recalibration and equalised odds) for their compatibility with the assumptions underpinning the guidelines’ decision rules. MethodsUsing an updated pooled cohorts data set, we derive unconstrained, group-recalibrated and equalised odds-constrained versions of the 10-year ASCVD risk estimators, and compare their calibration at guideline-concordant decision thresholds. RESULTS: We find that, compared with the unconstrained model, group-recalibration improves calibration at one of the relevant thresholds for each group, but exacerbates differences in false positive and false negative rates between groups. An equalised odds constraint, meant to equalise error rates across groups, does so by miscalibrating the model overall and at relevant decision thresholds. DISCUSSION: Hence, because of induced miscalibration, decisions guided by risk estimators learned with an equalised odds fairness constraint are not concordant with existing guidelines. Conversely, recalibrating the model separately for each group can increase guideline compatibility, while increasing intergroup differences in error rates. As such, comparisons of error rates across groups can be misleading when guidelines recommend treating at fixed decision thresholds. CONCLUSION: The illustrated tradeoffs between satisfying a fairness criterion and retaining guideline compatibility underscore the need to evaluate models in the context of downstream interventions. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-04-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8996004/ /pubmed/35396247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100460 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Research Foryciarz, Agata Pfohl, Stephen R Patel, Birju Shah, Nigam Evaluating algorithmic fairness in the presence of clinical guidelines: the case of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk estimation |
title | Evaluating algorithmic fairness in the presence of clinical guidelines: the case of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk estimation |
title_full | Evaluating algorithmic fairness in the presence of clinical guidelines: the case of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk estimation |
title_fullStr | Evaluating algorithmic fairness in the presence of clinical guidelines: the case of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk estimation |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating algorithmic fairness in the presence of clinical guidelines: the case of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk estimation |
title_short | Evaluating algorithmic fairness in the presence of clinical guidelines: the case of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk estimation |
title_sort | evaluating algorithmic fairness in the presence of clinical guidelines: the case of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk estimation |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8996004/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35396247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100460 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT foryciarzagata evaluatingalgorithmicfairnessinthepresenceofclinicalguidelinesthecaseofatheroscleroticcardiovasculardiseaseriskestimation AT pfohlstephenr evaluatingalgorithmicfairnessinthepresenceofclinicalguidelinesthecaseofatheroscleroticcardiovasculardiseaseriskestimation AT patelbirju evaluatingalgorithmicfairnessinthepresenceofclinicalguidelinesthecaseofatheroscleroticcardiovasculardiseaseriskestimation AT shahnigam evaluatingalgorithmicfairnessinthepresenceofclinicalguidelinesthecaseofatheroscleroticcardiovasculardiseaseriskestimation |