machine-learningarxiv

Fairness Metrics based on the AUC in Clinical Predictive AI

Fairness evaluation of clinical prediction models for binary outcomes often involves fairness metrics that compare the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, or c-statistic)…

João Matos / Ben Van Calster / Richard D. Riley / Paula Dhiman / Gary S. Collins

用途
原典で確認
難易度の目安
Hard
実装コストの目安
Medium

概要

Fairness evaluation of clinical prediction models for binary outcomes often involves fairness metrics that compare the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, or c-statistic) across subgroups. However, the AUC has been shown to be a non-collapsible metric, meaning that its subgroup specific and overall values are not directly comparable as often implicitly assumed. This raises important questions about how existing AUC-based fairness metrics should be used and interpreted. We examine eight AUC-based fairness metrics proposed in the literature, including: within-group AUC parity; cross-group AUC (xAUC) parity; gap-to-overall AUC; equity-scaled AUC; minimum-based metrics; $\mathrm{xAUC}^1$; $\mathrm{xAUC}^0$; and $\mathrm{xAUC}^1$ or $\mathrm{xAUC}^0$ parity. We characterise their estimands, relate them to the decomposition of overall AUC (into within- and cross-group components), and critically appraise them. We then illustrate their behaviour using simulations based on the EuroSCORE II, a clinical prediction model for in-hospital mortality. We recommend reporting an AUC matrix, containing the overall AUC and all within- and cross-group AUC components, alongside population characteristics. When fairness metrics are needed, we recommend reporting the within-group AUC parity, with cross-group AUC parity providing supplementary information but requiring caution due to its potential conflict with calibration. Metrics involving $\mathrm{xAUC}^1$ and $\mathrm{xAUC}^0$ have merit, summarising within- and cross-group AUCs into single values, but their interpretation is non-trivial, and they should be used with caution. Gap-to-overall AUC, equity-scaled AUC, and minimum-based metrics compare quantities that should not be compared and it is unclear how to operationalise them, making them not fit for purpose and generally not recommended.

参考リンク

リンク先のライセンス・再現性・データ条件をご確認ください。自動分類や実装の目安は保証ではありません。

実装を始めるプロンプト

参考リンクを確認したうえで、次の内容をコピーして利用できます。

# 論文・記事
Fairness Metrics based on the AUC in Clinical Predictive AI

# 概要
Fairness evaluation of clinical prediction models for binary outcomes often involves fairness metrics that compare the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, or c-statistic)…

# 原典
https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05222

上記の手法を実装してください。実行前に依存関係とライセンスを確認してください。

関連する記事

github実装リンクあり

keras — Deep Learning for humans

kerasは、人類が開発できる深層学習フレームワークで、モデル定義からトレーニングまでを行うことが可能。

人間による深層学習