Race adjustments in clinical algorithms can help correct for racial disparities in data quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite ethical and historical arguments for removing race from clinical algorithms, the consequences of removal remain unclear. Here, we highlight a largely undiscussed consideration in this debate: varying data quality of input features across race groups. For example, family history of cancer is an essential predictor in cancer risk prediction algorithms but is less reliably documented for Black participants and may therefore be less predictive of cancer outcomes. Using data from the Southern Community Cohort Study, we assessed whether race adjustments could allow risk prediction models to capture varying data quality by race, focusing on colorectal cancer risk prediction. We analyzed 77,836 adults with no history of colorectal cancer at baseline. The predictive value of self-reported family history was greater for White participants than for Black participants. We compared two cancer risk prediction algorithms—a race-blind algorithm which included standard colorectal cancer risk factors but not race, and a race-adjusted algorithm which additionally included race. Relative to the race-blind algorithm, the race-adjusted algorithm improved predictive performance, as measured by goodness of fit in a likelihood ratio test ( P -value: <0.001) and area under the receiving operating characteristic curve among Black participants ( P -value: 0.006). Because the race-blind algorithm underpredicted risk for Black participants, the race-adjusted algorithm increased the fraction of Black participants among the predicted high-risk group, potentially increasing access to screening. More broadly, this study shows that race adjustments may be beneficial when the data quality of key predictors in clinical algorithms differs by race group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.310 | 0.671 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".