RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 An individual-level socioeconomic measure for assessing algorithmic bias in health care settings: A case for HOUSES index
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.08.10.21261833
DO 10.1101/2021.08.10.21261833
A1 Young J. Juhn
A1 Euijung Ryu
A1 Chung-Il Wi
A1 Katherine S. King
A1 Santiago Romero Brufau
A1 Chunhua Weng
A1 Sunghwan Sohn
A1 Richard Sharp
A1 John D. Halamka
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/12/2021.08.10.21261833.abstract
AB While artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms hold great potential for improving health and reducing health disparities, biased AI algorithms have a potential to negatively impact the health of under-resourced communities or racial/ethnic minority populations. Our study highlights the major role of socioeconomic status (SES) in AI algorithm bias and (in)completeness of electronic health records (EHRs) data, which is commonly used for algorithm development. Understanding the extent to which SES impacts algorithmic bias and its pathways through which SES operates its impact on algorithmic bias such as differential (in)completeness of EHRs will be important for assessing and mitigating algorithmic bias. Despite its importance, the role of SES in the AI fairness science literature is currently under-recognized and under-studied, largely because objective and scalable individual-level SES measures are frequently unavailable in commonly used data sources such as EHRs. We addressed this challenge by applying a validated individual-level socioeconomic measure that we call the HOUSES index. This tool allows AI researchers to assess algorithmic bias due to SES. Although our study used a cohort with a relatively small sample size, these study results highlight a novel conceptual strategy for quantifying AI bias by SES.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by National Institute of Health (NIH)-funded R01 grant (R01 HL126667), R21 grant (R21AG65639-01A1) and R21 grant (R21AI142702).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (IRB).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available as they include protected health information. Access to data could be discussed per the institutional policy after approval of the IRB at Mayo Clinic.AEAsthma exacerbationAIArtificial IntelligenceEHRsElectronic health recordsFNFalse negativesFPFalse positivesGBMGradient Boosting MachineHOUSESHOUsing-based SocioEconomic Status measureMLMachine LearningNBNaïve BayesNAEPPNational Asthma Education and Prevention Program;PACPredetermined Asthma CriteriaSDHSocial Determinants of HealthSESSocioeconomic statusTNTrue negativesTPTrue positives