Abstract:Background: Fair clinical prediction models are crucial for achieving equitable health outcomes. Recently, intersectionality has been applied to develop fairness algorithms that address discrimination among intersections of protected attributes (e.g., Black women rather than Black persons or women separately). Still, the majority of medical AI literature applies marginal de-biasing approaches, which constrain performance across one or many isolated patient attributes. We investigate the extent to which this modeling decision affects model equity and performance in a well-defined use case in emergency medicine. Methods: The study focused on predicting emergency room admissions using electronic health record data from two large U.S. hospitals, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (MIMIC-IV-ED, n=160,016) and Boston Children's Hospital (BCH, n=22,222), covering both adult and pediatric populations. In a comprehensive experiment over fairness definitions, modeling methods, we compared the performance of single- and multi-attribute, marginal de-biasing approaches to intersectional de-biasing approaches. Results: Intersectional de-biasing produces greater reductions in subgroup calibration error (MIMIC-IV: 21.2%; BCH: 27.2%) than marginal de-biasing (MIMIC-IV: 10.6%; BCH: 22.7%), and also lowers subgroup false negative rates on MIMIC-IV an additional 3.5% relative to marginal de-biasing. These fairness gains were achieved without a significant decrease in model accuracy between baseline and intersectionally-debiased models (MIMIC-IV: AUROC=0.85+-0.00, both models; BCH: AUROC=0.88+-0.01 vs 0.87+-0.01). Intersectional de-biasing more effectively lowered subgroup calibration error and FNRs in low-prevalence groups in both datasets compared to other de-biasing conditions. Conclusion: Intersectional de-biasing better mitigates performance disparities across intersecting groups compared to marginal approaches for emergency admission prediction. These strategies meaningfully reduce group-specific error rates without compromising overall accuracy. These findings highlight the importance of considering interacting aspects of patient identity in model development, and suggest that intersectional de-biasing would be a promising gold standard for ensuring equity in clinical prediction models.

Predicting unequal treatment : From social perception to societal outcomes

Predicting Human Behavior Toward Members of Different Social Groups.

Beyond Demographic Parity: Redefining Equal Treatment

Designing Equitable Algorithms

On the Fairness of Machine-Assisted Human Decisions

Fairness in Computational Innovations: Identifying Bias in Substance Use Treatment Length of Stay Prediction Models with Policy Implications

Perceived warmth and competence predict callback rates in meta-analyzed North American labor market experiments

Allocation Requires Prediction Only if Inequality Is Low

Addressing Strategic Manipulation Disparities in Fair Classification

From the Fair Distribution of Predictions to the Fair Distribution of Social Goods: Evaluating the Impact of Fair Machine Learning on Long-Term Unemployment

Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action via Counterfactual Predictions

Estimating and Controlling for Equalized Odds via Sensitive Attribute Predictors

Learning to be Fair: A Consequentialist Approach to Equitable Decision-Making

The Relative Value of Prediction in Algorithmic Decision Making

Auditing Fairness under Unobserved Confounding

Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatment

Human Perceptions of Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: A Case Study of Criminal Risk Prediction

A Short-term Intervention for Long-term Fairness in the Labor Market

Intersectional consequences for marginal fairness in prediction models of emergency admissions

Does mitigating ML's impact disparity require treatment disparity?

Fair Classification and Social Welfare