Investigating real-world consequences of biases in commonly used clinical calculators.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether one summary metric of calculator performance sufficiently conveys equity across different demographic subgroups, as well as to evaluate how calculator predictive performance affects downstream health outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: We evaluate 3 commonly used clinical calculators-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), CHA2DS2-VASc, and simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI)-on the cohort extracted from the Stanford Medicine Research Data Repository, following the cohort selection process as described in respective calculator derivation papers. METHODS: We quantified the predictive performance of the 3 clinical calculators across sex and race. Then, using the clinical guidelines that guide care based on these calculators' output, we quantified potential disparities in subsequent health outcomes. RESULTS: Across the examined subgroups, the MELD calculator exhibited worse performance for female and White populations, CHA2DS2-VASc calculator for the male population, and sPESI for the Black population. The extent to which such performance differences translated into differential health outcomes depended on the distribution of the calculators' scores around the thresholds used to trigger a care action via the corresponding guidelines. In particular, under the old guideline for CHA2DS2-VASc, among those who would not have been offered anticoagulant therapy, the Hispanic subgroup exhibited the highest rate of stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical calculators, even when they do not include variables such as sex and race as inputs, can have very different care consequences across those subgroups. These differences in health care outcomes across subgroups can be explained by examining the distribution of scores and their calibration around the thresholds encoded in the accompanying care guidelines.

Assessment of Adherence to Reporting Guidelines by Commonly Used Clinical Prediction Models From a Single Vendor: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Various model reporting guidelines have been proposed to ensure clinical prediction models are reliable and fair. However, no consensus exists about which model details are essential to report, and commonalities and differences among reporting guidelines have not been characterized. Furthermore, how well documentation of deployed models adheres to these guidelines has not been studied. Objectives: To assess information requested by model reporting guidelines and whether the documentation for commonly used machine learning models developed by a single vendor provides the information requested. Evidence Review: MEDLINE was queried using machine learning model card and reporting machine learning from November 4 to December 6, 2020. References were reviewed to find additional publications, and publications without specific reporting recommendations were excluded. Similar elements requested for reporting were merged into representative items. Four independent reviewers and 1 adjudicator assessed how often documentation for the most commonly used models developed by a single vendor reported the items. Findings: From 15 model reporting guidelines, 220 unique items were identified that represented the collective reporting requirements. Although 12 items were commonly requested (requested by 10 or more guidelines), 77 items were requested by just 1 guideline. Documentation for 12 commonly used models from a single vendor reported a median of 39% (IQR, 37%-43%; range, 31%-47%) of items from the collective reporting requirements. Many of the commonly requested items had 100% reporting rates, including items concerning outcome definition, area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, internal validation, and intended clinical use. Several items reported half the time or less related to reliability, such as external validation, uncertainty measures, and strategy for handling missing data. Other frequently unreported items related to fairness (summary statistics and subgroup analyses, including for race and ethnicity or sex). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that consistent reporting recommendations for clinical predictive models are needed for model developers to share necessary information for model deployment. The many published guidelines would, collectively, require reporting more than 200 items. Model documentation from 1 vendor reported the most commonly requested items from model reporting guidelines. However, areas for improvement were identified in reporting items related to model reliability and fairness. This analysis led to feedback to the vendor, which motivated updates to the documentation for future users.