PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Chen, Zequn
AU  - Marrero, Wesley J.
TI  - A Survey on Optimization and Machine-learning-based Fair Decision Making in Healthcare
AID  - 10.1101/2024.03.16.24304403
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.03.16.24304403
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/18/2024.03.16.24304403.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/18/2024.03.16.24304403.full
AB  - Background Unintended biases introduced by optimization and machine learning (ML) models are of great interest to medical professionals. Bias in healthcare decisions can cause patients from vulnerable populations (e.g., racially minoritized, low-income) to have lower access to resources, exacerbating societal unfairness.Purpose This review aims to identify, describe, and categorize literature regarding bias types, fairness metrics, and bias mitigation methods in healthcare decision making.Data Sources Google Scholar database was searched to identify published studies.Study Selection Eligible studies were required to present 1) types of bias 2) fairness metrics and 3) bias mitigation methods within decision-making in healthcare.Data Extraction Studies were classified according to the three themes mentioned in the “Study Selection”. Information was extracted concerning the definitions, examples, applications, and limitations of bias types, fairness metrics, and bias mitigation methods.Data Synthesis In bias type section, we included studies (n=15) concerning different biases. In the fairness metric section, we included studies (n=6) regarding common fairness metrics. In bias mitigation method section, themes included pre-processing methods (n=5), in-processing methods (n=16), and post-processing methods (n=4).Limitations Most examples in our survey are from the United States since the majority of studies included in this survey were conducted in the United States. In the meanwhile, we limited the search language to English, so we may not capture some meaningful articles in other languages.Conclusions Several types of bias, fairness metrics, and bias mitigation methods (especially optimization and machine learning-based methods) were identified in this review, with common themes based on analytical approaches. We also found topics such as explainability, fairness metric selection, and integration of prediction and optimization are promising directions for future studies.HighlightsThis review aims to articulate common bias types and fairness metrics and delves into applications of bias mitigation methods within the context of medical decision making.We explored optimization-based and machine learning-based methodologies for medical decision-making applications in a detailed manner.The relationship and restrictions of various fairness metrics were analyzed, which can help people understand and select appropriate fairness metrics based on the concrete scenario.We investigated multiple bias mitigation technologies that have not been applied in healthcare but can be easily extended to healthcare settings.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth College.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced are available online at Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.com/