Exploring Bias and Prediction Metrics to Characterise the Fairness of Machine Learning for Equity-Centered Public Health Decision-Making: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid advancement of Machine Learning (ML) represents novel opportunities to enhance public health research, surveillance, and decision-making. However, there is a lack of comprehensive understanding of algorithmic bias — systematic errors in predicted population health outcomes — resulting from the public health application of ML. The objective of this narrative review is to explore the types of bias generated by ML and quantitative metrics to assess these biases. We performed search on PubMed, MEDLINE, IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) Digital Library, Science Direct, and Springer Nature. We used keywords to identify studies describing types of bias and metrics to measure these in the domain of ML and public and population health published in English between 2008 and 2023, inclusive. A total of 72 articles met the inclusion criteria. Our review identified the commonly described types of bias and quantitative metrics to assess these biases from an equity perspective. The review will help formalize the evaluation framework for ML on public health from an equity perspective.
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 | 0.062 | 0.263 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".