ABSTRACT
Objectives Reinforcement Learning is a branch of artificial intelligence (AI) which has the potential to support significant improvement in patient care. There is concern that such approaches may reinforce existing biases within patient groups. Understanding discrimination in AI models is important for building trust and ensuring fair and safe use. We explore the fairness of a published reinforcement learning model, used to suggest drug dosages for sepsis treatment of patients in critical care, on whether it safe to use with maternal sepsis patients.
Methods We evaluate the current model using by a) comparing the results for a group of patients with maternal sepsis against a matched control group and b) using random forests to explore feature importance in the model.
Results Our results show that the original clinicians’ decisions and model suggestions were similar across cohorts. Our feature importance ranking shows high variance for many of the features.
Discussion In medical settings, different subgroups may have specific clinical needs and require different treatment however, in the absence of a clinical consensus on the most appropriate treatment, AI algorithms that give consistent treatment to patients regardless of subgroup could be judged as the safest and fairest option.
Conclusion Our experiments showed that the evaluated model gave the same treatment to maternal and non-maternal sepsis patients. The methods developed for evaluating fair reinforcement learning may be more generally applicable to understanding how clinical AI tools can be used for safely and fairly.
What is already known on this topic The use of reinforcement learning to suggest drug dosages for sepsis patients in critical care is a well-researched area, with multiple open-source models available. It has not previously been considered whether these models can be used on maternal sepsis patients.
What this study adds The model studied behaves consistently on maternal and non-maternal sepsis patients, and appears to suggest an increased use of vasopressors compared with historical actions.
How this study might affect research, practice or policy This study shows that it is possible to design models which are consistent across maternal and non-maternal sepsis patients, suggesting that a single model may be appropriate across a variety of patients with sepsis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by UKRI
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Additional results were obtained and discussed, by using statistical parity to analyse previous results. This has added significant information to the discussion.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
