MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417065257 · doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaf171

Evaluation and improvement of algorithmic fairness for COVID-19 severity classification using Explainable Artificial Intelligence-based bias mitigation

2025· article· en· W4417065257 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMIA Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteUniversity Health NetworkMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk assessmentRisk stratificationDecision support systemIntervention (counseling)Resource (disambiguation)Risk management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the growing reliance on machine learning (ML) models for predicting disease severity, which is important for clinical decision-making and equitable resource allocation. While achieving high predictive accuracy is important, ensuring fairness in the prediction output of these models is equally important to prevent bias-driven disparities in healthcare. This study evaluates fairness in a machine learning-based COVID-19 severity classification model and proposes an Explainable AI (XAI)-based bias mitigation strategy to address sex-related bias. Materials and Methods: Using data from the Quebec Biobank, we developed an XGBoost-based multi-class classification model. Fairness was assessed using Subset Accuracy Parity Difference (SAPD) and Label-wise Equal Opportunity Difference (LEOD) metrics. Four bias mitigation strategies were implemented and evaluated: Fair Representation Learning, Fair Classifier Using Constraints, Adversarial Debiasing, and our proposed XAI-based method utilizing SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method for feature importance analysis. Results: The study cohort included 1642 COVID-19 positive older adults (mean age: 77.5), balance equally between males and females. The baseline (unmitigated) classification model achieved 90.68% accuracy but exhibited a 10.11% Subset Accuracy Parity Difference between sexes, indicating a relatively large bias. The introduced XAI-based method demonstrated a better trade-off between model performance and fairness compared to existing bias mitigation methods by identifying sex-sensitive feature interactions and integrating them into the model re-training. Discussion: Traditional fairness interventions often compromise accuracy to a greater extent. Our XAI-based method achieves the best balance between classification performance and bias, enhancing its clinical applicability. Conclusion: The XAI-driven bias mitigation intervention effectively reduces sex-based disparities in COVID-19 severity prediction without the significant accuracy loss observed in traditional methods. This approach provides a framework for developing fair and accurate clinical decision support systems for older adults, which ensures equitable care in clinical risk stratification and resource allocation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.502
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.033 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it