↓ Skip to main content

Investigating for bias in healthcare algorithms: a sex-stratified analysis of supervised machine learning models in liver disease prediction

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Health & Care Informatics, April 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 492)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Investigating for bias in healthcare algorithms: a sex-stratified analysis of supervised machine learning models in liver disease prediction
Published in
BMJ Health & Care Informatics, April 2022
DOI 10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100457
Pubmed ID
Authors

Isabel Straw, Honghan Wu

Abstract

The Indian Liver Patient Dataset (ILPD) is used extensively to create algorithms that predict liver disease. Given the existing research describing demographic inequities in liver disease diagnosis and management, these algorithms require scrutiny for potential biases. We address this overlooked issue by investigating ILPD models for sex bias. Following our literature review of ILPD papers, the models reported in existing studies are recreated and then interrogated for bias. We define four experiments, training on sex-unbalanced/balanced data, with and without feature selection. We build random forests (RFs), support vector machines (SVMs), Gaussian Naïve Bayes and logistic regression (LR) classifiers, running experiments 100 times, reporting average results with SD. We reproduce published models achieving accuracies of >70% (LR 71.31% (2.37 SD) - SVM 79.40% (2.50 SD)) and demonstrate a previously unobserved performance disparity. Across all classifiers females suffer from a higher false negative rate (FNR). Presently, RF and LR classifiers are reported as the most effective models, yet in our experiments they demonstrate the greatest FNR disparity (RF; -21.02%; LR; -24.07%). We demonstrate a sex disparity that exists in published ILPD classifiers. In practice, the higher FNR for females would manifest as increased rates of missed diagnosis for female patients and a consequent lack of appropriate care. Our study demonstrates that evaluating biases in the initial stages of machine learning can provide insights into inequalities in current clinical practice, reveal pathophysiological differences between the male and females, and can mitigate the digitisation of inequalities into algorithmic systems. Our findings are important to medical data scientists, clinicians and policy-makers involved in the implementation medical artificial intelligence systems. An awareness of the potential biases of these systems is essential in preventing the digital exacerbation of healthcare inequalities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 10%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 5%
Student > Bachelor 4 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 53 58%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Unspecified 6 7%
Computer Science 5 5%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 55 60%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 November 2023.
All research outputs
#606,081
of 25,498,750 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Health & Care Informatics
#11
of 492 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,760
of 446,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Health & Care Informatics
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,498,750 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 492 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,928 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.