Dataset Information

Quantifying representativeness in randomized clinical trials using machine learning fairness metrics.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

We help identify subpopulations underrepresented in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) cohorts with respect to national, community-based or health system target populations by formulating population representativeness of RCTs as a machine learning (ML) fairness problem, deriving new representation metrics, and deploying them in easy-to-understand interactive visualization tools.

Materials and methods

We represent RCT cohort enrollment as random binary classification fairness problems, and then show how ML fairness metrics based on enrollment fraction can be efficiently calculated using easily computed rates of subpopulations in RCT cohorts and target populations. We propose standardized versions of these metrics and deploy them in an interactive tool to analyze 3 RCTs with respect to type 2 diabetes and hypertension target populations in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Results

We demonstrate how the proposed metrics and associated statistics enable users to rapidly examine representativeness of all subpopulations in the RCT defined by a set of categorical traits (eg, gender, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and blood pressure) with respect to target populations.

Discussion

The normalized metrics provide an intuitive standardized scale for evaluating representation across subgroups, which may have vastly different enrollment fractions and rates in RCT study cohorts. The metrics are beneficial complements to other approaches (eg, enrollment fractions) used to identify generalizability and health equity of RCTs.

Conclusion

By quantifying the gaps between RCT and target populations, the proposed methods can support generalizability evaluation of existing RCT cohorts. The interactive visualization tool can be readily applied to identified underrepresented subgroups with respect to any desired source or target populations.

SUBMITTER: Qi M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8460438 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although self-report pain ratings are the gold standard in clinical pain assessment, they are inherently subjective in nature and significantly influenced by multidimensional contextual variables. Although objective biomarkers for pain could substantially aid pain diagnosis and development of novel therapies, reliable markers for clinical pain have been elusive. In this study, individualized physical maneuvers were used to exacerbate clinical pain in patients with chronic low back pain (N = 53), thereby experimentally producing lower and higher pain states. Multivariate machine-learning models were then built from brain imaging (resting-state blood-oxygenation-level-dependent and arterial spin labeling functional imaging) and autonomic activity (heart rate variability) features to predict within-patient clinical pain intensity states (ie, lower vs higher pain) and were then applied to predict between-patient clinical pain ratings with independent training and testing data sets. Within-patient classification between lower and higher clinical pain intensity states showed best performance (accuracy = 92.45%, area under the curve = 0.97) when all 3 multimodal parameters were combined. Between-patient prediction of clinical pain intensity using independent training and testing data sets also demonstrated significant prediction across pain ratings using the combined model (Pearson's r = 0.63). Classification of increased pain was weighted by elevated cerebral blood flow in the thalamus, and prefrontal and posterior cingulate cortices, and increased primary somatosensory connectivity to frontoinsular cortex. Our machine-learning approach introduces a model with putative biomarkers for clinical pain and multiple clinical applications alongside self-report, from pain assessment in noncommunicative patients to identification of objective pain endophenotypes that can be used in future longitudinal research aimed at discovery of new approaches to combat chronic pain.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Adverse event (AE) under-reporting has been a recurrent issue raised during health authorities Good Clinical Practices (GCP) inspections and audits. Moreover, safety under-reporting poses a risk to patient safety and data integrity. The current clinical Quality Assurance (QA) practices used to detect AE under-reporting rely heavily on investigator site and study audits. Yet several sponsors and institutions have had repeated findings related to safety reporting, and this has led to delays in regulatory submissions. Recent developments in data management and IT systems allow data scientists to apply techniques such as machine learning to detect AE under-reporting in an automated fashion. OBJECTIVE:In this project, we developed a predictive model that enables Roche/Genentech Quality Program Leads oversight of AE reporting at the program, study, site, and patient level. This project was part of a broader effort at Roche/Genentech Product Development Quality to apply advanced analytics to augment and complement traditional clinical QA approaches. METHOD:We used a curated data set from 104 completed Roche/Genentech sponsored clinical studies to train a machine learning model to predict the expected number of AEs. Our final model used 54 features built on patient (e.g., demographics, vitals) and study attributes (e.g., molecule class, disease area). RESULTS:In order to evaluate model performance, we tested how well it would detect simulated test cases based on data not used for model training. For relevant simulation scenarios of 25%, 50%, and 75% under-reporting on the site level, our model scored an area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.62, 0.79, and 0.92, respectively. CONCLUSION:The model has been deployed to evaluate safety reporting performance in a set of ongoing studies in the form of a QA/dashboard cockpit available to Roche Quality Program Leads. Applicability and production performance will be assessed over the next 12-24 months in which we will develop a validation strategy to fully integrate our model into Roche QA processes.

Project description:ImportancePredictive models using machine learning techniques have potential to improve early detection and management of Alzheimer disease (AD). However, these models potentially have biases and may perpetuate or exacerbate existing disparities.ObjectiveTo characterize the algorithmic fairness of longitudinal prediction models for AD progression.Design, setting, and participantsThis prognostic study investigated the algorithmic fairness of logistic regression, support vector machines, and recurrent neural networks for predicting progression to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD using data from participants in the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative evaluated at 57 sites in the US and Canada. Participants aged 54 to 91 years who contributed data on at least 2 visits between September 2005 and May 2017 were included. Data were analyzed in October 2022.ExposuresFairness was quantified across sex, ethnicity, and race groups. Neuropsychological test scores, anatomical features from T1 magnetic resonance imaging, measures extracted from positron emission tomography, and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers were included as predictors.Main outcomes and measuresOutcome measures quantified fairness of prediction models (logistic regression [LR], support vector machine [SVM], and recurrent neural network [RNN] models), including equal opportunity, equalized odds, and demographic parity. Specifically, if the model exhibited equal sensitivity for all groups, it aligned with the principle of equal opportunity, indicating fairness in predictive performance.ResultsA total of 1730 participants in the cohort (mean [SD] age, 73.81 [6.92] years; 776 females [44.9%]; 69 Hispanic [4.0%] and 1661 non-Hispanic [96.0%]; 29 Asian [1.7%], 77 Black [4.5%], 1599 White [92.4%], and 25 other race [1.4%]) were included. Sensitivity for predicting progression to MCI and AD was lower for Hispanic participants compared with non-Hispanic participants; the difference (SD) in true positive rate ranged from 20.9% (5.5%) for the RNN model to 27.8% (9.8%) for the SVM model in MCI and 24.1% (5.4%) for the RNN model to 48.2% (17.3%) for the LR model in AD. Sensitivity was similarly lower for Black and Asian participants compared with non-Hispanic White participants; for example, the difference (SD) in AD true positive rate was 14.5% (51.6%) in the LR model, 12.3% (35.1%) in the SVM model, and 28.4% (16.8%) in the RNN model for Black vs White participants, and the difference (SD) in MCI true positive rate was 25.6% (13.1%) in the LR model, 24.3% (13.1%) in the SVM model, and 6.8% (18.7%) in the RNN model for Asian vs White participants. Models generally satisfied metrics of fairness with respect to sex, with no significant differences by group, except for cognitively normal (CN)-MCI and MCI-AD transitions (eg, an absolute increase [SD] in the true positive rate of CN-MCI transitions of 10.3% [27.8%] for the LR model).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, models were accurate in aggregate but failed to satisfy fairness metrics. These findings suggest that fairness should be considered in the development and use of machine learning models for AD progression.