Abstract
Data-driven clinical prediction algorithms are used widely by clinicians. Understanding what factors can impact the performance and fairness of data-driven algorithms is an important step towards achieving equitable healthcare. To investigate the impact of modeling choices on the algorithmic performance and fairness, we make use of a case study to build a prediction algorithm for estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) based on the patient’s electronic health record (EHR). We compare three distinct approaches for estimating GFR: CKD-EPI equations, epidemiological models, and EHR-based models. For epidemiological models and EHR-based models, four machine learning models of varying computational complexity (i.e., linear regression, support vector machine, random forest regression, and neural network) were compared. Performance metrics included root mean squared error (RMSE), median difference, and the proportion of GFR estimates within 30% of the measured GFR value (P30). Differential performance between non-African American and African American group was used to assess algorithmic fairness with respect to race. Our study showed that the variable race had a negligible effect on error, accuracy, and differential performance. Furthermore, including more relevant clinical features (e.g., common comorbidities of chronic kidney disease) and using more complex machine learning models, namely random forest regression, significantly lowered the estimation error of GFR. However, the difference in performance between African American and non-African American patients did not decrease, where the estimation error for African American patients remained consistently higher than non-African American patients, indicating that more objective patient characteristics should be discovered and included to improve algorithm performance.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the National Library of Medicine grant R01-LM006910.
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 IRB of Columbia University approved the study under protocol IRB-AAAF3162.
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
Footnotes
linyingz{at}wustl.edu
lr2854{at}cumc.columbia.edu
tk2999{at}columbia.edu
Identify applicable funding agency here. If none, delete this text box.
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
