Gareth Jones

Gareth Jones, Jim Parr, Perumal Nithiarasu et al.

This proof of concept (PoC) assesses the ability of machine learning (ML) classifiers to predict the presence of a stenosis in a three vessel arterial system consisting of the abdominal aorta bifurcating into the two common iliacs. A virtual patient database (VPD) is created using one-dimensional pulse wave propagation model of haemodynamics. Four different machine learning (ML) methods are used to train and test a series of classifiers -- both binary and multiclass -- to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy virtual patients (VPs) using different combinations of pressure and flow-rate measurements. It is found that the ML classifiers achieve specificities larger than 80% and sensitivities ranging from 50-75%. The most balanced classifier also achieves an area under the receiver operative characteristic curve of 0.75, outperforming approximately 20 methods used in clinical practice, and thus placing the method as moderately accurate. Other important observations from this study are that: i) few measurements can provide similar classification accuracies compared to the case when more/all the measurements are used; ii) some measurements are more informative than others for classification; and iii) a modification of standard methods can result in detection of not only the presence of stenosis, but also the stenosed vessel.

Gareth P. Jones, James M. Hickey, Pietro G. Di Stefano et al.

Understanding and removing bias from the decisions made by machine learning models is essential to avoid discrimination against unprivileged groups. Despite recent progress in algorithmic fairness, there is still no clear answer as to which bias-mitigation approaches are most effective. Evaluation strategies are typically use-case specific, rely on data with unclear bias, and employ a fixed policy to convert model outputs to decision outcomes. To address these problems, we performed a systematic comparison of a number of popular fairness algorithms applicable to supervised classification. Our study is the most comprehensive of its kind. It utilizes three real and four synthetic datasets, and two different ways of converting model outputs to decisions. It considers fairness, predictive-performance, calibration quality, and speed of 28 different modelling pipelines, corresponding to both fairness-unaware and fairness-aware algorithms. We found that fairness-unaware algorithms typically fail to produce adequately fair models and that the simplest algorithms are not necessarily the fairest ones. We also found that fairness-aware algorithms can induce fairness without material drops in predictive power. Finally, we found that dataset idiosyncracies (e.g., degree of intrinsic unfairness, nature of correlations) do affect the performance of fairness-aware approaches. Our results allow the practitioner to narrow down the approach(es) they would like to adopt without having to know in advance their fairness requirements.