Biases in Race and Ethnicity Introduced by Filtering Electronic Health Records for “Complete Data”: Observational Clinical Data Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Integrated clinical databases from national biobanks have advanced the capacity for disease research. Data quality and completeness filters are used when building clinical cohorts to address limitations of data missingness. However, these filters may unintentionally introduce systemic biases when they are correlated with race and ethnicity. Objective: In this study, we examined the race and ethnicity biases introduced by applying common filters to 4 clinical records databases. Specifically, we evaluated whether these filters introduce biases that disproportionately exclude minoritized groups. Methods: We applied 19 commonly used data filters to electronic health record datasets from 4 geographically varied locations comprising close to 12 million patients to understand how using these filters introduces sample bias along racial and ethnic groupings. These filters covered a range of information, including demographics, medication records, visit details, and observation periods. We observed the variation in sample drop-off between self-reported ethnic and racial groups for each site as we applied each filter individually. Results: Applying the observation period filter substantially reduced data availability across all races and ethnicities in all 4 datasets. However, among those examined, the availability of data in the white group remained consistently higher compared to other racial groups after applying each filter. Conversely, the Black or African American group was the most impacted by each filter on these 3 datasets: Cedars-Sinai dataset, UK Biobank, and Columbia University dataset. Among the 4 distinct datasets, only applying the filters to the All of Us dataset resulted in minimal deviation from the baseline, with most racial and ethnic groups following a similar pattern. Conclusions: Our findings underscore the importance of using only necessary filters, as they might disproportionally affect data availability of minoritized racial and ethnic populations. Researchers must consider these unintentional biases when performing data-driven research and explore techniques to minimize the impact of these filters, such as probabilistic methods or adjusted cohort selection methods. Additionally, we recommend disclosing sample sizes for racial and ethnic groups both before and after data filters are applied to aid the reader in understanding the generalizability of the results. Future work should focus on exploring the effects of filters on downstream analyses.
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 | 0.179 | 0.337 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".