ArticleJAMIA open2026
Evaluation and improvement of algorithmic fairness for COVID-19 severity classification using Explainable Artificial Intelligence-based bias mitigation.
Article in JAMIA open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.