IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/hcarem/v27y2024i4d10.1007_s10729-024-09691-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating machine learning model bias and racial disparities in non-small cell lung cancer using SEER registry data

Author

Listed:
  • Cameron Trentz

    (University of Iowa)

  • Jacklyn Engelbart

    (University of Iowa
    University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics)

  • Jason Semprini

    (University of Iowa)

  • Amanda Kahl

    (University of Iowa)

  • Eric Anyimadu

    (University of Iowa)

  • John Buatti

    (University of Iowa)

  • Thomas Casavant

    (University of Iowa)

  • Mary Charlton

    (University of Iowa)

  • Guadalupe Canahuate

    (University of Iowa)

Abstract

Background Despite decades of pursuing health equity, racial and ethnic disparities persist in healthcare in America. For cancer specifically, one of the leading observed disparities is worse mortality among non-Hispanic Black patients compared to non-Hispanic White patients across the cancer care continuum. These real-world disparities are reflected in the data used to inform the decisions made to alleviate such inequities. Failing to account for inherently biased data underlying these observations could intensify racial cancer disparities and lead to misguided efforts that fail to appropriately address the real causes of health inequity. Objective Estimate the racial/ethnic bias of machine learning models in predicting two-year survival and surgery treatment recommendation for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Methods A Cox survival model, and a LOGIT model as well as three other machine learning models for predicting surgery recommendation were trained using SEER data from NSCLC patients diagnosed from 2000-2018. Models were trained with a 70/30 train/test split (both including and excluding race/ethnicity) and evaluated using performance and fairness metrics. The effects of oversampling the training data were also evaluated. Results The survival models show disparate impact towards non-Hispanic Black patients regardless of whether race/ethnicity is used as a predictor. The models including race/ethnicity amplified the disparities observed in the data. The exclusion of race/ethnicity as a predictor in the survival and surgery recommendation models improved fairness metrics without degrading model performance. Stratified oversampling strategies reduced disparate impact while reducing the accuracy of the model. Conclusion NSCLC disparities are complex and multifaceted. Yet, even when accounting for age and stage at diagnosis, non-Hispanic Black patients with NSCLC are less often recommended to have surgery than non-Hispanic White patients. Machine learning models amplified the racial/ethnic disparities across the cancer care continuum (which are reflected in the data used to make model decisions). Excluding race/ethnicity lowered the bias of the models but did not affect disparate impact. Developing analytical strategies to improve fairness would in turn improve the utility of machine learning approaches analyzing population-based cancer data.

Suggested Citation

  • Cameron Trentz & Jacklyn Engelbart & Jason Semprini & Amanda Kahl & Eric Anyimadu & John Buatti & Thomas Casavant & Mary Charlton & Guadalupe Canahuate, 2024. "Evaluating machine learning model bias and racial disparities in non-small cell lung cancer using SEER registry data," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 631-649, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:hcarem:v:27:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s10729-024-09691-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10729-024-09691-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10729-024-09691-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10729-024-09691-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:hcarem:v:27:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s10729-024-09691-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.