Madison Coots, Kristin A Linn, Sharad Goel, Amol S Navathe, Ravi B Parikh
{"title":"临床和人口健康算法中的种族偏见:对当前辩论的批判性回顾。","authors":"Madison Coots, Kristin A Linn, Sharad Goel, Amol S Navathe, Ravi B Parikh","doi":"10.1146/annurev-publhealth-071823-112058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Among health care researchers, there is increasing debate over how best to assess and ensure the fairness of algorithms used for clinical decision support and population health, particularly concerning potential racial bias. Here we first distill concerns over the fairness of health care algorithms into four broad categories: (<i>a</i>) the explicit inclusion (or, conversely, the exclusion) of race and ethnicity in algorithms, (<i>b</i>) unequal algorithm decision rates across groups, (<i>c</i>) unequal error rates across groups, and (<i>d</i>) potential bias in the target variable used in prediction. With this taxonomy, we critically examine seven prominent and controversial health care algorithms. We show that popular approaches that aim to improve the fairness of health care algorithms can in fact worsen outcomes for individuals across all racial and ethnic groups. We conclude by offering an alternative, consequentialist framework for algorithm design that mitigates these harms by instead foregrounding outcomes and clarifying trade-offs in the pursuit of equitable decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":50752,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Public Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":21.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Racial Bias in Clinical and Population Health Algorithms: A Critical Review of Current Debates.\",\"authors\":\"Madison Coots, Kristin A Linn, Sharad Goel, Amol S Navathe, Ravi B Parikh\",\"doi\":\"10.1146/annurev-publhealth-071823-112058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Among health care researchers, there is increasing debate over how best to assess and ensure the fairness of algorithms used for clinical decision support and population health, particularly concerning potential racial bias. Here we first distill concerns over the fairness of health care algorithms into four broad categories: (<i>a</i>) the explicit inclusion (or, conversely, the exclusion) of race and ethnicity in algorithms, (<i>b</i>) unequal algorithm decision rates across groups, (<i>c</i>) unequal error rates across groups, and (<i>d</i>) potential bias in the target variable used in prediction. With this taxonomy, we critically examine seven prominent and controversial health care algorithms. We show that popular approaches that aim to improve the fairness of health care algorithms can in fact worsen outcomes for individuals across all racial and ethnic groups. We conclude by offering an alternative, consequentialist framework for algorithm design that mitigates these harms by instead foregrounding outcomes and clarifying trade-offs in the pursuit of equitable decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50752,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annual Review of Public Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":21.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annual Review of Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-071823-112058\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual Review of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-071823-112058","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Racial Bias in Clinical and Population Health Algorithms: A Critical Review of Current Debates.
Among health care researchers, there is increasing debate over how best to assess and ensure the fairness of algorithms used for clinical decision support and population health, particularly concerning potential racial bias. Here we first distill concerns over the fairness of health care algorithms into four broad categories: (a) the explicit inclusion (or, conversely, the exclusion) of race and ethnicity in algorithms, (b) unequal algorithm decision rates across groups, (c) unequal error rates across groups, and (d) potential bias in the target variable used in prediction. With this taxonomy, we critically examine seven prominent and controversial health care algorithms. We show that popular approaches that aim to improve the fairness of health care algorithms can in fact worsen outcomes for individuals across all racial and ethnic groups. We conclude by offering an alternative, consequentialist framework for algorithm design that mitigates these harms by instead foregrounding outcomes and clarifying trade-offs in the pursuit of equitable decision-making.
期刊介绍:
The Annual Review of Public Health has been a trusted publication in the field since its inception in 1980. It provides comprehensive coverage of important advancements in various areas of public health, such as epidemiology, biostatistics, environmental health, occupational health, social environment and behavior, health services, as well as public health practice and policy.
In an effort to make the valuable research and information more accessible, the current volume has undergone a transformation. Previously, access to the articles was restricted, but now they are available to everyone through the Annual Reviews' Subscribe to Open program. This open access approach ensures that the knowledge and insights shared in these articles can reach a wider audience. Additionally, all the published articles are licensed under a CC BY license, allowing users to freely use, distribute, and build upon the content, while giving appropriate credit to the original authors.