Abstract
Despite ethical and historical arguments for removing race from algorithms, the consequences of this practice for medical decision-making remain unclear. Eliminating race corrections can have unintended consequences: it can decrease both accuracy and equity, because structural racism distorts the measurement of many variables. We illustrate this using the example of family history of colorectal cancer commonly used in cancer screening. Using data from the Southern Community Cohort Study (SCCS), established to study cancer disparities, we analyze 77,836 adults with no history of colorectal cancer at baseline. First, we compare the prognostic value of self-reported family history for self-reported Black vs. White participants and find that family history is strongly predictive of cancer risk for White, but not Black participants. We then create two screening algorithms that model colorectal cancer risk. The baseline algorithm is race-blind, while the race-corrected algorithm adds Black race both as a main effect and as an interaction family history. The race-corrected algorithm improves upon the race-blind algorithm in a likelihood ratio test (p-value: <0.001). In addition, both race terms are significant: the main effect (p-value: <0.001) captures the fact that, among participants with no family history, Black participants have 1.34x higher odds than White participants of developing colorectal cancer. The interaction term between race and family history is also statistically significant (p-value 0.012), capturing the differential predictive value of family history across race groups. As a result, the race-corrected algorithm includes more Black participants among the predicted high-risk group. Our case study illustrates a much broader point: missing and erroneous data is ubiquitous in medicine, at rates which vary by race group, and race correction can help address this problem.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
EP was supported by a Google Research Scholar award, an NSF CAREER award, a CIFAR Azrieli Global scholarship, a LinkedIn Research Award, a Future Fund Regrant, and a Cohen Research Fund grant.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study did not meet the definition of human subjects research at Cornell University and therefore did not require IRB approval.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data are not available under the data use agreement.
