Search

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether one summary metric of calculator performance sufficiently conveys equity across different demographic subgroups, as well as to evaluate how calculator predictive performance affects downstream health outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: We evaluate 3 commonly used clinical calculators--Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), CHA2DS2-VASc, and simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI)--on the cohort extracted from the Stanford Medicine Research Data Repository, following the cohort selection process as described in respective calculator derivation papers. METHODS: We quantified the predictive performance of the 3 clinical calculators across sex and race. Then, using the clinical guidelines that guide care based on these calculators' output, we quantified potential disparities in subsequent health outcomes. RESULTS: Across the examined subgroups, the MELD calculator exhibited worse performance for female and White populations, CHA2DS2-VASc calculator for the male population, and sPESI for the Black population. The extent to which such performance differences translated into differential health outcomes depended on the distribution of the calculators' scores around the thresholds used to trigger a care action via the corresponding guidelines. In particular, under the old guideline for CHA2DS2-VASc, among those who would not have been offered anticoagulant therapy, the Hispanic subgroup exhibited the highest rate of stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical calculators, even when they do not include variables such as sex and race as inputs, can have very different care consequences across those subgroups. These differences in health care outcomes across subgroups can be explained by examining the distribution of scores and their calibration around the thresholds encoded in the accompanying care guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predictive models for clinical outcomes that are accurate on average in a patient population may underperform drastically for some subpopulations, potentially introducing or reinforcing inequities in care access and quality. Model training approaches that aim to maximize worst-case model performance across subpopulations, such as distributionally robust optimization (DRO), attempt to address this problem without introducing additional harms. We conduct a large-scale empirical study of DRO and several variations of standard learning procedures to identify approaches for model development and selection that consistently improve disaggregated and worst-case performance over subpopulations compared to standard approaches for learning predictive models from electronic health records data. In the course of our evaluation, we introduce an extension to DRO approaches that allows for specification of the metric used to assess worst-case performance. We conduct the analysis for models that predict in-hospital mortality, prolonged length of stay, and 30-day readmission for inpatient admissions, and predict in-hospital mortality using intensive care data. We find that, with relatively few exceptions, no approach performs better, for each patient subpopulation examined, than standard learning procedures using the entire training dataset. These results imply that when it is of interest to improve model performance for patient subpopulations beyond what can be achieved with standard practices, it may be necessary to do so via data collection techniques that increase the effective sample size or reduce the level of noise in the prediction problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]