Abstract
Objective Statistical and artificial intelligence algorithms are increasingly being developed for use in healthcare. These algorithms may reflect biases that magnify disparities in clinical care, and there is a growing need for understanding how algorithmic biases can be mitigated in pursuit of algorithmic fairness. Individual fairness in algorithms constrains algorithms to the notion that “similar individuals should be treated similarly.” We conducted a scoping review on algorithmic individual fairness to understand the current state of research in the metrics and methods developed to achieve individual fairness and its applications in healthcare.
Methods We searched three databases, PubMed, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore, for algorithmic individual fairness metrics, algorithmic bias mitigation, and healthcare applications. Our search was restricted to articles published between January 2013 and September 2023. We identified 1,886 articles through database searches and manually identified one article from which we included 30 articles in the review. Data from the selected articles were extracted, and the findings were synthesized.
Results Based on the 30 articles in the review, we identified several themes, including philosophical underpinnings of fairness, individual fairness metrics, mitigation methods for achieving individual fairness, implications of achieving individual fairness on group fairness and vice versa, fairness metrics that combined individual fairness and group fairness, software for measuring and optimizing individual fairness, and applications of individual fairness in healthcare.
Conclusion While there has been significant work on algorithmic individual fairness in recent years, the definition, use, and study of individual fairness remain in their infancy, especially in healthcare. Future research is needed to apply and evaluate individual fairness in healthcare comprehensively.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institutes of Health under award number T15 LM007059 from the National Library of Medicine and under award number UL1 TR001857 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. It was also supported by a School of Computing and Information Predoctoral Fellowship to JWA.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
Glossary
- Fairness metric
- A mathematical definition of “fairness” that is measurable.
- Fairness constraint
- Applying a constraint to an algorithm to ensure one or more definitions of fairness are satisfied.
- Group Fairness
- An algorithm is fair if some statistic of the algorithm is equal across protected groups.
- Individual Fairness
- An algorithm is fair if it gives similar predictions to similar individuals.
- Counterfactual
- The unobservable case where an individual belonging to some “treatment” group, a, were to belong to an alternative group, a′.
- Counterfactual Fairness
- An algorithm is fair if gives similar predictions for individuals and their counterfactuals.
- Target specification bias
- A discrepancy in the operationalization and understanding of a target variable between clinicians and researchers.
- Consistency
- A philosophical principle of fairness of “similar individuals being treated similarly.”
- Discrimination
- A philosophical principle of fairness that the performance of a predictive model should be similar or equal across protected groups.
- Pre-processing
- Adjust, transform, reweight, or augment data to ensure balanced representation and remove discrimination.
- In-processing
- Modify the training of the algorithm to incorporate fairness constraints or objectives directly.
- Post-processing
- Adjust or transform the decisions or outputs of an algorithm subsequent to its training.
- Individual justice
- The idea that individuals should be assessed on their own qualities, circumstances, and attributes, not based on generalizations about groups of which they happen to be a member.
