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。

IF 21.4 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在医疗保健研究人员中,关于如何最好地评估和确保用于临床决策支持和人口健康的算法的公平性的争论越来越多,特别是关于潜在的种族偏见。在这里,我们首先将对医疗保健算法公平性的关注归纳为四大类:(a)算法中明确包含(或相反地,排除)种族和民族,(b)不同群体的算法决策率不等,(c)不同群体的错误率不等,以及(d)预测中使用的目标变量的潜在偏差。用这种分类法,我们严格检查七个突出的和有争议的医疗算法。我们表明,旨在提高医疗保健算法公平性的流行方法实际上会使所有种族和族裔群体的个人结果恶化。最后,我们为算法设计提供了另一种结果主义框架,通过在追求公平决策的过程中突出结果和澄清权衡来减轻这些危害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annual Review of Public Health
Annual Review of Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
26.60
自引率
1.40%
发文量
36
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信