Nick Souligne

Nick Souligne, Vignesh Subbian

Intersectional biases in healthcare data can produce compound disparities in clinical machine learning models, yet most fairness evaluations assess demographic attributes independently. FairLogue, a toolkit for intersectional fairness auditing, was applied across multiple clinical prediction tasks to evaluate disparities across combined demographic groups. Using the All of Us dataset, two published models were selected for replication and evaluation: (A) prediction of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor associated bleeding events and (B) two-year stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation. Observational fairness metrics were computed across race, gender, and intersectional subgroups, followed by counterfactual analysis to evaluate whether disparities were attributable to group membership. Intersectional evaluation revealed larger disparities than single-axis analyses; however, counterfactual diagnostics indicated that most observed disparities were comparable to those expected under randomized group membership. These results highlight the importance of intersectional fairness auditing and demonstrate how FairLogue provides deeper insight into bias in clinical machine learning systems.

Nick Souligne, Vignesh Subbian

Objective: Algorithmic fairness is essential for equitable and trustworthy machine learning in healthcare. Most fairness tools emphasize single-axis demographic comparisons and may miss compounded disparities affecting intersectional populations. This study introduces Fairlogue, a toolkit designed to operationalize intersectional fairness assessment in observational and counterfactual contexts within clinical settings. Methods: Fairlogue is a Python-based toolkit composed of three components: 1) an observational framework extending demographic parity, equalized odds, and equal opportunity difference to intersectional populations; 2) a counterfactual framework evaluating fairness under treatment-based contexts; and 3) a generalized counterfactual framework assessing fairness under interventions on intersectional group membership. The toolkit was evaluated using electronic health record data from the All of Us Controlled Tier V8 dataset in a glaucoma surgery prediction task using logistic regression with race and gender as protected attributes. Results: Observational analysis identified substantial intersectional disparities despite moderate model performance (AUROC = 0.709; accuracy = 0.651). Intersectional evaluation revealed larger fairness gaps than single-axis analyses, including demographic parity differences of 0.20 and equalized odds true positive and false positive rate gaps of 0.33 and 0.15, respectively. Counterfactual analysis using permutation-based null distributions produced unfairness ("u-value") estimates near zero, suggesting observed disparities were consistent with chance after conditioning on covariates. Conclusion: Fairlogue provides a modular toolkit integrating observational and counterfactual methods for quantifying and evaluating intersectional bias in clinical machine learning workflows.