An Empirical Characterization of Fair Machine Learning For Clinical Risk
  Prediction
  The use of machine learning to guide clinical decision making has the
potential to worsen existing health disparities. Several recent works frame the
problem as that of algorithmic fairness, a framework that has attracted
considerable attention and criticism. However, the appropriateness of this
framework is unclear due to both ethical as well as technical considerations,
the latter of which include trade-offs between measures of fairness and model
performance that are not well-understood for predictive models of clinical
outcomes. To inform the ongoing debate, we conduct an empirical study to
characterize the impact of penalizing group fairness violations on an array of
measures of model performance and group fairness. We repeat the analyses across
multiple observational healthcare databases, clinical outcomes, and sensitive
attributes. We find that procedures that penalize differences between the
distributions of predictions across groups induce nearly-universal degradation
of multiple performance metrics within groups. On examining the secondary
impact of these procedures, we observe heterogeneity of the effect of these
procedures on measures of fairness in calibration and ranking across
experimental conditions. Beyond the reported trade-offs, we emphasize that
analyses of algorithmic fairness in healthcare lack the contextual grounding
and causal awareness necessary to reason about the mechanisms that lead to
health disparities, as well as about the potential of algorithmic fairness
methods to counteract those mechanisms. In light of these limitations, we
encourage researchers building predictive models for clinical use to step
outside the algorithmic fairness frame and engage critically with the broader
sociotechnical context surrounding the use of machine learning in healthcare.
