Search

Objective The Score for Emergency Risk Prediction (SERP) is a novel mortality risk prediction score which leverages machine learning in supporting triage decisions. In its derivation study, SERP-2d, SERP-7d and SERP-30d demonstrated good predictive performance for 2-day, 7-day and 30-day mortality. However, the dataset used had significant class imbalance. This study aimed to determine if addressing class imbalance can improve SERP's performance, ultimately improving triage accuracy. Methods The Singapore General Hospital (SGH) emergency department (ED) dataset was used, which contains 1,833,908 ED records between 2008 and 2020. Records between 2008 and 2017 were randomly split into a training set (80%) and validation set (20%). The 2019 and 2020 records were used as test sets. To address class imbalance, we used random oversampling and random undersampling in the AutoScore-Imbalance framework to develop SERP+-2d, SERP+-7d, and SERP+-30d scores. The performance of SERP+, SERP, and the commonly used triage risk scores was compared. Results The developed SERP+ scores had five to six variables. The AUC of SERP+ scores (0.874 to 0.905) was higher than that of the corresponding SERP scores (0.859 to 0.894) on both test sets. This superior performance was statistically significant for SERP+-7d (2019: Z = −5.843, p

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated the ability to extract insights from data, but the fairness of such data-driven insights remains a concern in high-stakes fields. Despite extensive developments, issues of AI fairness in clinical contexts have not been adequately addressed. A fair model is normally expected to perform equally across subgroups defined by sensitive variables (e.g., age, gender/sex, race/ethnicity, socio-economic status, etc.). Various fairness measurements have been developed to detect differences between subgroups as evidence of bias, and bias mitigation methods are designed to reduce the differences detected. This perspective of fairness, however, is misaligned with some key considerations in clinical contexts. The set of sensitive variables used in healthcare applications must be carefully examined for relevance and justified by clear clinical motivations. In addition, clinical AI fairness should closely investigate the ethical implications of fairness measurements (e.g., potential conflicts between group- and individual-level fairness) to select suitable and objective metrics. Generally defining AI fairness as “equality” is not necessarily reasonable in clinical settings, as differences may have clinical justifications and do not indicate biases. Instead, “equity” would be an appropriate objective of clinical AI fairness. Moreover, clinical feedback is essential to developing fair and well-performing AI models, and efforts should be made to actively involve clinicians in the process. The adaptation of AI fairness towards healthcare is not self-evident due to misalignments between technical developments and clinical considerations. Multidisciplinary collaboration between AI researchers, clinicians, and ethicists is necessary to bridge the gap and translate AI fairness into real-life benefits.