Linying Zhang

Linying Zhang, Lauren R. Richter, Yixin Wang et al.

Healthcare continues to grapple with the persistent issue of treatment disparities, sparking concerns regarding the equitable allocation of treatments in clinical practice. While various fairness metrics have emerged to assess fairness in decision-making processes, a growing focus has been on causality-based fairness concepts due to their capacity to mitigate confounding effects and reason about bias. However, the application of causal fairness notions in evaluating the fairness of clinical decision-making with electronic health record (EHR) data remains an understudied domain. This study aims to address the methodological gap in assessing causal fairness of treatment allocation with electronic health records data. We propose a causal fairness algorithm to assess fairness in clinical decision-making. Our algorithm accounts for the heterogeneity of patient populations and identifies potential unfairness in treatment allocation by conditioning on patients who have the same likelihood to benefit from the treatment. We apply this framework to a patient cohort with coronary artery disease derived from an EHR database to evaluate the fairness of treatment decisions. In addition, we investigate the impact of social determinants of health on the assessment of causal fairness of treatment allocation.

Chao Pang, Xinzhuo Jiang, Nishanth Parameshwar Pavinkurve et al.

Synthetic Electronic Health Records (EHR) have emerged as a pivotal tool in advancing healthcare applications and machine learning models, particularly for researchers without direct access to healthcare data. Although existing methods, like rule-based approaches and generative adversarial networks (GANs), generate synthetic data that resembles real-world EHR data, these methods often use a tabular format, disregarding temporal dependencies in patient histories and limiting data replication. Recently, there has been a growing interest in leveraging Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT) for EHR data. This enables applications like disease progression analysis, population estimation, counterfactual reasoning, and synthetic data generation. In this work, we focus on synthetic data generation and demonstrate the capability of training a GPT model using a particular patient representation derived from CEHR-BERT, enabling us to generate patient sequences that can be seamlessly converted to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) data format.

Hyewon Jeong, Sarah Jabbour, Yuzhe Yang et al. · uw

The third ML4H symposium was held in person on December 10, 2023, in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. The symposium included research roundtable sessions to foster discussions between participants and senior researchers on timely and relevant topics for the \ac{ML4H} community. Encouraged by the successful virtual roundtables in the previous year, we organized eleven in-person roundtables and four virtual roundtables at ML4H 2022. The organization of the research roundtables at the conference involved 17 Senior Chairs and 19 Junior Chairs across 11 tables. Each roundtable session included invited senior chairs (with substantial experience in the field), junior chairs (responsible for facilitating the discussion), and attendees from diverse backgrounds with interest in the session's topic. Herein we detail the organization process and compile takeaways from these roundtable discussions, including recent advances, applications, and open challenges for each topic. We conclude with a summary and lessons learned across all roundtables. This document serves as a comprehensive review paper, summarizing the recent advancements in machine learning for healthcare as contributed by foremost researchers in the field.

Linying Zhang, Yixin Wang, Anna Ostropolets et al.

The treatment effects of medications play a key role in guiding medical prescriptions. They are usually assessed with randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are expensive. Recently, large-scale electronic health records (EHRs) have become available, opening up new opportunities for more cost-effective assessments. However, assessing a treatment effect from EHRs is challenging: it is biased by unobserved confounders, unmeasured variables that affect both patients' medical prescription and their outcome, e.g. the patients' social economic status. To adjust for unobserved confounders, we develop the medical deconfounder, a machine learning algorithm that unbiasedly estimates treatment effects from EHRs. The medical deconfounder first constructs a substitute confounder by modeling which medications were prescribed to each patient; this substitute confounder is guaranteed to capture all multi-medication confounders, observed or unobserved (arXiv:1805.06826). It then uses this substitute confounder to adjust for the confounding bias in the analysis. We validate the medical deconfounder on two simulated and two real medical data sets. Compared to classical approaches, the medical deconfounder produces closer-to-truth treatment effect estimates; it also identifies effective medications that are more consistent with the findings in the medical literature.

Omer Gottesman, Fredrik Johansson, Joshua Meier et al.

Much attention has been devoted recently to the development of machine learning algorithms with the goal of improving treatment policies in healthcare. Reinforcement learning (RL) is a sub-field within machine learning that is concerned with learning how to make sequences of decisions so as to optimize long-term effects. Already, RL algorithms have been proposed to identify decision-making strategies for mechanical ventilation, sepsis management and treatment of schizophrenia. However, before implementing treatment policies learned by black-box algorithms in high-stakes clinical decision problems, special care must be taken in the evaluation of these policies. In this document, our goal is to expose some of the subtleties associated with evaluating RL algorithms in healthcare. We aim to provide a conceptual starting point for clinical and computational researchers to ask the right questions when designing and evaluating algorithms for new ways of treating patients. In the following, we describe how choices about how to summarize a history, variance of statistical estimators, and confounders in more ad-hoc measures can result in unreliable, even misleading estimates of the quality of a treatment policy. We also provide suggestions for mitigating these effects---for while there is much promise for mining observational health data to uncover better treatment policies, evaluation must be performed thoughtfully.