Predictive models for low birth weight: a comparative analysis of algorithmic fairness-improving approaches.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Clare C Brown, Horacio Gomez-Acevedo, Benjamin C Amick, J Mick Tilford, Keneshia Bryant-Moore, Michael Thomsen
{"title":"Predictive models for low birth weight: a comparative analysis of algorithmic fairness-improving approaches.","authors":"Clare C Brown, Horacio Gomez-Acevedo, Benjamin C Amick, J Mick Tilford, Keneshia Bryant-Moore, Michael Thomsen","doi":"10.37765/ajmc.2025.89737","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Evaluating whether common algorithmic fairness-improving approaches can improve low-birth-weight predictive model performance can provide important implications for population health management and health equity. This study aimed to evaluate alternative approaches for improving algorithmic fairness for low-birth-weight predictive models.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective, cross-sectional study of birth certificates linked with medical insurance claims.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Birth certificates (n = 191,943; 2014-2022) were linked with insurance claims (2013-2021) from the Arkansas All-Payer Claims Database to assess alternative approaches for algorithmic fairness in predictive models for low birth weight (< 2500 g). We fit an original model and compared 6 fairness-improving approaches using elastic net models trained and tested with 70/30 balanced random split samples and 10-fold cross validation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The original model had lower accuracy (percent predicted correctly) in predicting low birth weight among Black, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, Asian, and unknown racial/ethnic populations relative to White individuals. For Black individuals, accuracy increased with all 6 fairness-improving approaches relative to the original model; however, sensitivity (true-positives correctly predicted as low birth weight) significantly declined, as much as 31% (from 0.824 to 0.565), in 5 of 6 approaches.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When developing and implementing decision-making algorithms, it is critical that model performance metrics align with management goals for the predictive tool. In our study, fairness-improving models improved accuracy and area under the curve scores for Black individuals but decreased sensitivity and negative predictive value, suggesting that the original model, although unfair, was not improved. Implementation of unfair models for allocating preventive services could perpetuate racial/ethnic inequities by failing to identify individuals most at risk for a low-birth-weight delivery.</p>","PeriodicalId":50808,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Managed Care","volume":"31 5","pages":"e132-e137"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12109546/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Managed Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37765/ajmc.2025.89737","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Evaluating whether common algorithmic fairness-improving approaches can improve low-birth-weight predictive model performance can provide important implications for population health management and health equity. This study aimed to evaluate alternative approaches for improving algorithmic fairness for low-birth-weight predictive models.

Study design: Retrospective, cross-sectional study of birth certificates linked with medical insurance claims.

Methods: Birth certificates (n = 191,943; 2014-2022) were linked with insurance claims (2013-2021) from the Arkansas All-Payer Claims Database to assess alternative approaches for algorithmic fairness in predictive models for low birth weight (< 2500 g). We fit an original model and compared 6 fairness-improving approaches using elastic net models trained and tested with 70/30 balanced random split samples and 10-fold cross validation.

Results: The original model had lower accuracy (percent predicted correctly) in predicting low birth weight among Black, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, Asian, and unknown racial/ethnic populations relative to White individuals. For Black individuals, accuracy increased with all 6 fairness-improving approaches relative to the original model; however, sensitivity (true-positives correctly predicted as low birth weight) significantly declined, as much as 31% (from 0.824 to 0.565), in 5 of 6 approaches.

Conclusions: When developing and implementing decision-making algorithms, it is critical that model performance metrics align with management goals for the predictive tool. In our study, fairness-improving models improved accuracy and area under the curve scores for Black individuals but decreased sensitivity and negative predictive value, suggesting that the original model, although unfair, was not improved. Implementation of unfair models for allocating preventive services could perpetuate racial/ethnic inequities by failing to identify individuals most at risk for a low-birth-weight delivery.

低出生体重预测模型:改进算法公平性方法的比较分析。
目的:评价常用的算法公平性改进方法是否能改善低出生体重预测模型的性能,对人口健康管理和健康公平具有重要意义。本研究旨在评估提高低出生体重预测模型算法公平性的替代方法。研究设计:出生证明与医疗保险索赔相关的回顾性横断面研究。方法:出生证明(n = 191,943;2014-2022)与阿肯色州全付款人索赔数据库中的保险索赔(2013-2021)相关联,以评估低出生体重预测模型中算法公平性的替代方法(结果:与白人相比,原始模型在预测黑人、夏威夷原住民/其他太平洋岛民、亚洲人和未知种族/族裔人群的低出生体重方面的准确性(预测正确百分比)较低。对于黑人个体,与原始模型相比,所有6种公平改进方法的准确性都有所提高;然而,在6种方法中的5种中,敏感性(正确预测为低出生体重的真阳性)显著下降,高达31%(从0.824降至0.565)。结论:在开发和实施决策算法时,模型性能指标与预测工具的管理目标保持一致是至关重要的。在我们的研究中,公平改善模型提高了黑人个体的曲线下面积得分的准确性,但降低了敏感性和负预测值,这表明原始模型虽然不公平,但没有得到改进。实施不公平的预防服务分配模式可能会使种族/民族不平等永续下去,因为它无法确定最容易出现低出生体重分娩的个体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Journal of Managed Care
American Journal of Managed Care 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
177
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Managed Care is an independent, peer-reviewed publication dedicated to disseminating clinical information to managed care physicians, clinical decision makers, and other healthcare professionals. Its aim is to stimulate scientific communication in the ever-evolving field of managed care. The American Journal of Managed Care addresses a broad range of issues relevant to clinical decision making in a cost-constrained environment and examines the impact of clinical, management, and policy interventions and programs on healthcare and economic outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信