Score breakdown

Dissecting Racial Bias in an Algorithm Used to Manage the Health of Populations

paper-0115 · paper · 2019

Ziad Obermeyer et al.

Showed a deployed health algorithm systematically disadvantaged Black patients.

Abstract

Health systems rely on commercial prediction algorithms to identify and help patients with complex health needs. We show that a widely used algorithm, typical of this industry-wide approach and affecting millions of patients, exhibits significant racial bias: At a given risk score, Black patients are considerably sicker than White patients, as evidenced by signs of uncontrolled illnesses. Remedying this disparity would increase the percentage of Black patients receiving additional help from 17.7 to 46.5%. The bias arises because the algorithm predicts health care costs rather than illness, but unequal access to care means that we spend less money caring for Black patients than for White patients. Thus, despite health care cost appearing to be an effective proxy for health by some measures of predictive accuracy, large racial biases arise. We suggest that the choice of convenient, seemingly effective proxies for ground truth can be an important source of algorithmic bias in many contexts. [OpenAlex]

Academic, score -0.1861

MetricStatusValueNorm.WeightContributionSourceConfidenceLicenseProvenance
citation_countpresent6155.00.0277020.50.013851OpenAlexhighOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
library_holdingsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.1recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed
readership_persistencepresent8.00.50.050.025OpenAlexmediumOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
syllabus_adoptionsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.125recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed

Broad Influence, score 0.0055

MetricStatusValueNorm.WeightContributionSourceConfidenceLicenseProvenance
citation_countpresent6155.00.0277020.20.00554OpenAlexhighOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
library_holdingsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.125recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed
readership_persistencepresent8.00.50.40.2OpenAlexmediumOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
syllabus_adoptionsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.075recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed

Governance Practitioner, score -0.2681

MetricStatusValueNorm.WeightContributionSourceConfidenceLicenseProvenance
citation_countpresent6155.00.0277020.250.006925OpenAlexhighOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
library_holdingsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.15recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed
readership_persistencepresent8.00.50.10.05OpenAlexmediumOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
syllabus_adoptionsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.175recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed

A rank is not a verdict on intrinsic worth. It is a transparent output of declared evidence, weights, and missing-data rules at a specific release date.

Disagree with this rank or a number? Challenge it with your evidence. Every challenge gets a public identifier and a published resolution.