{"title":"Survival After Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: Development of a Fair Machine Learning Model.","authors":"Samuel Carbunaru, Yassamin Neshatvar, Hyungrok Do, Katie Murray, Rajesh Ranganath, Madhur Nayan","doi":"10.2196/63289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prediction models based on machine learning (ML) methods are being increasingly developed and adopted in health care. However, these models may be prone to bias and considered unfair if they demonstrate variable performance in population subgroups. An unfair model is of particular concern in bladder cancer, where disparities have been identified in sex and racial subgroups.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims (1) to develop a ML model to predict survival after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer and evaluate for potential model bias in sex and racial subgroups; and (2) to compare algorithm unfairness mitigation techniques to improve model fairness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We trained and compared various ML classification algorithms to predict 5-year survival after radical cystectomy using the National Cancer Database. The primary model performance metric was the F<sub>1</sub>-score. The primary metric for model fairness was the equalized odds ratio (eOR). We compared 3 algorithm unfairness mitigation techniques to improve eOR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 16,481 patients; 23.1% (n=3800) were female, and 91.5% (n=15,080) were \"White,\" 5% (n=832) were \"Black,\" 2.3% (n=373) were \"Hispanic,\" and 1.2% (n=196) were \"Asian.\" The 5-year mortality rate was 75% (n=12,290). The best naive model was extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), which had an F<sub>1</sub>-score of 0.860 and eOR of 0.619. All unfairness mitigation techniques increased the eOR, with correlation remover showing the highest increase and resulting in a final eOR of 0.750. This mitigated model had F<sub>1</sub>-scores of 0.86, 0.904, and 0.824 in the full, Black male, and Asian female test sets, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ML model predicting survival after radical cystectomy exhibited bias across sex and racial subgroups. By using algorithm unfairness mitigation techniques, we improved algorithmic fairness as measured by the eOR. Our study highlights the role of not only evaluating for model bias but also actively mitigating such disparities to ensure equitable health care delivery. We also deployed the first web-based fair ML model for predicting survival after radical cystectomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":56334,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Informatics","volume":"12 ","pages":"e63289"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11694706/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/63289","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Prediction models based on machine learning (ML) methods are being increasingly developed and adopted in health care. However, these models may be prone to bias and considered unfair if they demonstrate variable performance in population subgroups. An unfair model is of particular concern in bladder cancer, where disparities have been identified in sex and racial subgroups.
Objective: This study aims (1) to develop a ML model to predict survival after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer and evaluate for potential model bias in sex and racial subgroups; and (2) to compare algorithm unfairness mitigation techniques to improve model fairness.
Methods: We trained and compared various ML classification algorithms to predict 5-year survival after radical cystectomy using the National Cancer Database. The primary model performance metric was the F1-score. The primary metric for model fairness was the equalized odds ratio (eOR). We compared 3 algorithm unfairness mitigation techniques to improve eOR.
Results: We identified 16,481 patients; 23.1% (n=3800) were female, and 91.5% (n=15,080) were "White," 5% (n=832) were "Black," 2.3% (n=373) were "Hispanic," and 1.2% (n=196) were "Asian." The 5-year mortality rate was 75% (n=12,290). The best naive model was extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), which had an F1-score of 0.860 and eOR of 0.619. All unfairness mitigation techniques increased the eOR, with correlation remover showing the highest increase and resulting in a final eOR of 0.750. This mitigated model had F1-scores of 0.86, 0.904, and 0.824 in the full, Black male, and Asian female test sets, respectively.
Conclusions: The ML model predicting survival after radical cystectomy exhibited bias across sex and racial subgroups. By using algorithm unfairness mitigation techniques, we improved algorithmic fairness as measured by the eOR. Our study highlights the role of not only evaluating for model bias but also actively mitigating such disparities to ensure equitable health care delivery. We also deployed the first web-based fair ML model for predicting survival after radical cystectomy.
期刊介绍:
JMIR Medical Informatics (JMI, ISSN 2291-9694) is a top-rated, tier A journal which focuses on clinical informatics, big data in health and health care, decision support for health professionals, electronic health records, ehealth infrastructures and implementation. It has a focus on applied, translational research, with a broad readership including clinicians, CIOs, engineers, industry and health informatics professionals.
Published by JMIR Publications, publisher of the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR), the leading eHealth/mHealth journal (Impact Factor 2016: 5.175), JMIR Med Inform has a slightly different scope (emphasizing more on applications for clinicians and health professionals rather than consumers/citizens, which is the focus of JMIR), publishes even faster, and also allows papers which are more technical or more formative than what would be published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.