ABSTRACT
Objective Biases within probabilistic electronic phenotyping algorithms are largely unexplored. In this work, we characterize differences in sub-group performance of phenotyping algorithms for Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) in older adults.
Materials and methods We created an experimental framework to characterize the performance of probabilistic phenotyping algorithms under different racial distributions allowing us to identify which algorithms may have differential performance, by how much, and under what conditions. We relied on rule-based phenotype definitions as reference to evaluate probabilistic phenotype algorithms created using the Automated PHenotype Routine for Observational Definition, Identification, Training and Evaluation (APHRODITE) framework.
Results We demonstrate that some algorithms have performance variations anywhere from 3 to 30% for different populations, even when not using race as an input variable. We show that while performance differences in subgroups are not present for all phenotypes, they do affect some phenotypes and groups more disproportionately than others.
Discussion Our analysis establishes the need for a robust evaluation framework for subgroup differences. The underlying patient populations for the algorithms showing subgroup performance differences have great variance between model features when compared to the phenotypes with little to no differences.
Conclusion We have created a framework to identify systematic differences in the performance of probabilistic phenotyping algorithms specifically in the context of ADRD as a use case. Differences in subgroup performance of probabilistic phenotyping algorithms are not widespread nor do they occur consistently. This highlights the great need for careful ongoing monitoring to evaluate, measure, and try to mitigate such differences.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health (3P30 AG059307-02S1)
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I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
