Evidence mapPaperPMID 37128361Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2022

Assessing Phenotype Definitions for Algorithmic Fairness.

Tony Y Sun, Shreyas A Bhave, Jaan Altosaar, Noémie Elhadad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A Generalized Tool to Assess Algorithmic Fairness in Disease Phenotype Definitions.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Improving reporting standards for phenotyping algorithm in biomedical research: 5 fundamental dimensions.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  10. Cross Biobank Comparison of Phenomic Profiles.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tony Y SunColumbia University, New York, New York.
Shreyas A BhaveColumbia University, New York, New York.
Jaan AltosaarColumbia University, New York, New York.
Noémie ElhadadColumbia University, New York, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phenotyping is a core, routine activity in observational health research. Cohorts impact downstream analyses, such as how a condition is characterized, how patient risk is defined, and what treatments are studied. It is thus critical to ensure that cohorts are representative of all patients, independently of their demographics or social determinants of health. In this paper, we propose a set of best practices to assess the fairness of phenotype definitions. We leverage established fairness metrics commonly used in predictive models and relate them to commonly used epidemiological metrics. We describe an empirical study for Crohn's disease and diabetes type 2, each with multiple phenotype definitions taken from the literature across gender and race. We show that the different phenotype definitions exhibit widely varying and disparate performance according to the different fairness metrics and subgroups. We hope that the proposed best practices can help in constructing fair and inclusive phenotype definitions.

Indexed as

Crohn DiseaseHumansPhenotype

Identifiers

PMID37128361
PMCPMC10148336

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.