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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Foryciarz, Agata, Pfohl, Stephen R, Patel, Birju, Shah, Nigam
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