Towards Assessing Data Bias in Clinical Trials

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.09633v1
• Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 17:10:06 GMT
• Title: Towards Assessing Data Bias in Clinical Trials
• Authors: Chiara Criscuolo, Tommaso Dolci and Mattia Salnitri
• Abstract summary: Health care datasets can still be affected by data bias. Data bias provides a distorted view of reality, leading to wrong analysis results and, consequently, decisions. This paper proposes a method to address bias in datasets that: (i) defines the types of data bias that may be present in the dataset, (ii) characterizes and quantifies data bias with adequate metrics, and (iii) provides guidelines to identify, measure, and mitigate data bias for different data sources.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Algorithms and technologies are essential tools that pervade all aspects of our daily lives. In the last decades, health care research benefited from new computer-based recruiting methods, the use of federated architectures for data storage, the introduction of innovative analyses of datasets, and so on. Nevertheless, health care datasets can still be affected by data bias. Due to data bias, they provide a distorted view of reality, leading to wrong analysis results and, consequently, decisions. For example, in a clinical trial that studied the risk of cardiovascular diseases, predictions were wrong due to the lack of data on ethnic minorities. It is, therefore, of paramount importance for researchers to acknowledge data bias that may be present in the datasets they use, eventually adopt techniques to mitigate them and control if and how analyses results are impacted. This paper proposes a method to address bias in datasets that: (i) defines the types of data bias that may be present in the dataset, (ii) characterizes and quantifies data bias with adequate metrics, (iii) provides guidelines to identify, measure, and mitigate data bias for different data sources. The method we propose is applicable both for prospective and retrospective clinical trials. We evaluate our proposal both through theoretical considerations and through interviews with researchers in the health care environment.

Related papers

• Lazy Data Practices Harm Fairness Research [49.02318458244464]
  We present a comprehensive analysis of fair ML datasets, demonstrating how unreflective practices hinder the reach and reliability of algorithmic fairness findings. Our analyses identify three main areas of concern: (1) a textbflack of representation for certain protected attributes in both data and evaluations; (2) the widespread textbf of minorities during data preprocessing; and (3) textbfopaque data processing threatening the generalization of fairness research. This study underscores the need for a critical reevaluation of data practices in fair ML and offers directions to improve both the sourcing and usage of datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-26T09:51:24Z)
• An AI-Guided Data Centric Strategy to Detect and Mitigate Biases in Healthcare Datasets [32.25265709333831]
  We generate a data-centric, model-agnostic, task-agnostic approach to evaluate dataset bias by investigating the relationship between how easily different groups are learned at small sample sizes (AEquity) We then apply a systematic analysis of AEq values across subpopulations to identify and manifestations of racial bias in two known cases in healthcare. AEq is a novel and broadly applicable metric that can be applied to advance equity by diagnosing and remediating bias in healthcare datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T17:08:41Z)
• Systematic Evaluation of Predictive Fairness [60.0947291284978]
  Mitigating bias in training on biased datasets is an important open problem. We examine the performance of various debiasing methods across multiple tasks. We find that data conditions have a strong influence on relative model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T05:40:13Z)
• D-BIAS: A Causality-Based Human-in-the-Loop System for Tackling Algorithmic Bias [57.87117733071416]
  We propose D-BIAS, a visual interactive tool that embodies human-in-the-loop AI approach for auditing and mitigating social biases. A user can detect the presence of bias against a group by identifying unfair causal relationships in the causal network. For each interaction, say weakening/deleting a biased causal edge, the system uses a novel method to simulate a new (debiased) dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-10T03:41:48Z)
• Social Bias Meets Data Bias: The Impacts of Labeling and Measurement Errors on Fairness Criteria [4.048444203617942]
  We consider two forms of dataset bias: errors by prior decision makers in the labeling process, and errors in measurement of the features of disadvantaged individuals. We analytically show that some constraints can remain robust when facing certain statistical biases, while others (such as Equalized Odds) are significantly violated if trained on biased data. Our findings present an additional guideline for choosing among existing fairness criteria, or for proposing new criteria, when available datasets may be biased.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-31T22:43:09Z)
• Predicting Seriousness of Injury in a Traffic Accident: A New Imbalanced Dataset and Benchmark [62.997667081978825]
  The paper introduces a new dataset to assess the performance of machine learning algorithms in the prediction of the seriousness of injury in a traffic accident. The dataset is created by aggregating publicly available datasets from the UK Department for Transport.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T21:15:26Z)
• TRAPDOOR: Repurposing backdoors to detect dataset bias in machine learning-based genomic analysis [15.483078145498085]
  Under-representation of groups in datasets can lead to inaccurate predictions for certain groups, which can exacerbate systemic discrimination issues. We propose TRAPDOOR, a methodology for identification of biased datasets by repurposing a technique that has been mostly proposed for nefarious purposes: Neural network backdoors. Using a real-world cancer dataset, we analyze the dataset with the bias that already existed towards white individuals and also introduced biases in datasets artificially.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-14T17:02:02Z)
• Machine Learning and Data Science approach towards trend and predictors analysis of CDC Mortality Data for the USA [0.0]
  The study concluded (based on a sample) life expectancy regardless of gender, and their central tendencies; Marital status of the people also affected how frequent deaths were for each of them. The study shows that machine learning predictions aren't as viable for the data as it might be apparent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-11T12:46:57Z)
• Trajectories, bifurcations and pseudotime in large clinical datasets: applications to myocardial infarction and diabetes data [94.37521840642141]
  We suggest a semi-supervised methodology for the analysis of large clinical datasets, characterized by mixed data types and missing values. The methodology is based on application of elastic principal graphs which can address simultaneously the tasks of dimensionality reduction, data visualization, clustering, feature selection and quantifying the geodesic distances (pseudotime) in partially ordered sequences of observations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-07T21:04:55Z)
• Enabling Counterfactual Survival Analysis with Balanced Representations [64.17342727357618]
  Survival data are frequently encountered across diverse medical applications, i.e., drug development, risk profiling, and clinical trials. We propose a theoretically grounded unified framework for counterfactual inference applicable to survival outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-14T01:15:00Z)
• Overly Optimistic Prediction Results on Imbalanced Data: a Case Study of Flaws and Benefits when Applying Over-sampling [13.463035357173045]
  We focus on one specific type of methodological flaw: applying over-sampling before partitioning the data into mutually exclusive training and testing sets. We show how this causes the results to be biased using two artificial datasets and reproduce results of studies in which this flaw was identified.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-15T12:53:23Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.