Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Algorithmic fairness in precision psychiatry: analysis of prediction models in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis.
Sahin, Derya; Kambeitz-Ilankovic, Lana; Wood, Stephen; Dwyer, Dominic; Upthegrove, Rachel; Salokangas, Raimo; Borgwardt, Stefan; Brambilla, Paolo; Meisenzahl, Eva; Ruhrmann, Stephan; Schultze-Lutter, Frauke; Lencer, Rebekka; Bertolino, Alessandro; Pantelis, Christos; Koutsouleris, Nikolaos; Kambeitz, Joseph.
Affiliation
  • Sahin D; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
  • Kambeitz-Ilankovic L; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany; and Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany.
  • Wood S; Centre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; and Orygen, the National Centre of Excellence for Youth Mental Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Dwyer D; Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany; and Orygen, the National Centre of Excellence for Youth Mental Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Upthegrove R; Institute for Mental Health and Centre for Brain Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; and Early Intervention Service, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
  • Salokangas R; Department of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
  • Borgwardt S; Department of Psychiatry (University Psychiatric Clinics, UPK), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; and Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
  • Brambilla P; Department of Neurosciences and Mental Health, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy; and Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
  • Meisenzahl E; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
  • Ruhrmann S; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
  • Schultze-Lutter F; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany; Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Airlangga University, Surabaya, Indonesia; and University Hospital of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Bern, B
  • Lencer R; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany; and Institute for Translational Psychiatry, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
  • Bertolino A; Department of Basic Medical Science, Neuroscience and Sense Organs, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
  • Pantelis C; Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, University of Melbourne & Melbourne Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Koutsouleris N; Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany; Max-Planck Institute of Psychiatry, Munich, Germany; and Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
  • Kambeitz J; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Br J Psychiatry ; 224(2): 55-65, 2024 02.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37936347
BACKGROUND: Computational models offer promising potential for personalised treatment of psychiatric diseases. For their clinical deployment, fairness must be evaluated alongside accuracy. Fairness requires predictive models to not unfairly disadvantage specific demographic groups. Failure to assess model fairness prior to use risks perpetuating healthcare inequalities. Despite its importance, empirical investigation of fairness in predictive models for psychiatry remains scarce. AIMS: To evaluate fairness in prediction models for development of psychosis and functional outcome. METHOD: Using data from the PRONIA study, we examined fairness in 13 published models for prediction of transition to psychosis (n = 11) and functional outcome (n = 2) in people at clinical high risk for psychosis or with recent-onset depression. Using accuracy equality, predictive parity, false-positive error rate balance and false-negative error rate balance, we evaluated relevant fairness aspects for the demographic attributes 'gender' and 'educational attainment' and compared them with the fairness of clinicians' judgements. RESULTS: Our findings indicate systematic bias towards assigning less favourable outcomes to individuals with lower educational attainment in both prediction models and clinicians' judgements, resulting in higher false-positive rates in 7 of 11 models for transition to psychosis. Interestingly, the bias patterns observed in algorithmic predictions were not significantly more pronounced than those in clinicians' predictions. CONCLUSIONS: Educational bias was present in algorithmic and clinicians' predictions, assuming more favourable outcomes for individuals with higher educational level (years of education). This bias might lead to increased stigma and psychosocial burden in patients with lower educational attainment and suboptimal psychosis prevention in those with higher educational attainment.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Psychiatry / Psychotic Disorders Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Br J Psychiatry Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Alemania Country of publication: Reino Unido

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Psychiatry / Psychotic Disorders Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Br J Psychiatry Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Alemania Country of publication: Reino Unido