A Simplified Metric to Streamline Between-Group Fairness Assessment for Predictive Models: Algorithm Development and Evaluation Study
TL;DR
This study develops and evaluates novel fairness-oriented discrimination metrics for clinical risk prediction that address limitations of within-group and pairwise cross-group approaches, and proposes group-level extensions of the CI and AUC that summarize subgroup-specific performance in a single interpretable measure.
Abstract
Abstract Background Fairness evaluation is essential for trustworthy clinical risk prediction. However, existing fairness-oriented discrimination metrics either ignore cross-group comparisons or rely on exhaustive pairwise evaluations, making them difficult to interpret and impractical for model selection. Objective This study aimed to develop and evaluate novel fairness-oriented discrimination metrics for clinical risk prediction that address limitations of within-group and pairwise cross-group approaches. Methods We examined theoretical properties of existing U-statistic–based metrics, including concordance index (CI) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), when applied to subgroups. We highlighted the distinction between within-group discrimination (ranking within a subgroup) and group-level discrimination (ranking relative to the broader population). Building on this framework, we proposed group-level extensions of the CI and AUC that summarize subgroup-specific performance in a single interpretable measure. We then applied these metrics to the PREVENT (Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Events) equation, a recently developed model for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Results The traditional subgroup-specific CI and AUC captured within-group but not group-level discrimination, obscuring inequities in clinical decision-making. Existing cross-group approaches (eg, the xCI and xAUC metrics) addressed this limitation but became computationally and interpretively burdensome with multiple subgroups due to pairwise comparisons. Our proposed metrics provided a streamlined alternative, yielding 1 summary statistic per subgroup while retaining sensitivity to cross-group ranking disparities. Applied to PREVENT, these metrics revealed differences in subgroup performance not apparent from within-group evaluations. Conclusions By distinguishing between within-group and group-level discrimination, our framework clarifies a common source of misinterpretation in fairness evaluation. The proposed group-level extensions of the CI and AUC provide practical, interpretable tools for evaluating fairness in clinical prediction models, enabling more transparent and equitable risk assessment.