mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Multi-disciplinary fairness considerations in machine learning for clinical trials

arXiv 2205.08875 ↗First posted 18 May 2022cs.LG cs.CYcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

While interest in the application of machine learning to improve healthcare has grown tremendously in recent years, a number of barriers prevent deployment in medical practice. A notable concern is the potential to exacerbate entrenched biases and existing health disparities in society. The area of fairness in machine learning seeks to address these issues of equity; however, appropriate approaches are context-dependent, necessitating domain-specific consideration. We focus on clinical trials, i.e., research studies conducted on humans to evaluate medical treatments. Clinical trials are a relatively under-explored application in machine learning for healthcare, in part due to complex ethical, legal, and regulatory requirements and high costs. Our aim is to provide a multi-disciplinary assessment of how fairness for machine learning fits into the context of clinical trials research and practice. We start by reviewing the current ethical considerations and guidelines for clinical trials and examine their relationship with common definitions of fairness in machine learning. We examine potential sources of unfairness in clinical trials, providing concrete examples, and discuss the role machine learning might play in either mitigating potential biases or exacerbating them when applied without care. Particular focus is given to adaptive clinical trials, which may employ machine learning. Finally, we highlight concepts that require further investigation and development, and emphasize new approaches to fairness that may be relevant to the design of clinical trials.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 50 of its 321 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 May 2022.

Builds on

50 of 321 references.

References · 50

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  2. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  3. 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 802
  4. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  5. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
  6. 2018Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learningcited by 663
  7. 2015Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forestscited by 597
  8. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
  9. 2016Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatmentcited by 368
  10. 2018Learning Adversarially Fair and Transferable Representationscited by 353
  11. 2018Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?cited by 262
  12. 2015Recursive Partitioning for Heterogeneous Causal Effectscited by 254
38 more
  1. 2018Multiaccuracy: Black-Box Post-Processing for Fairness in Classificationcited by 221
  2. 2018Time-uniform, nonparametric, nonasymptotic confidence sequencescited by 220
  3. 2017Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoningcited by 191
  4. 2016Fairness in Learning: Classic and Contextual Banditscited by 167
  5. 2017Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophycited by 148
  6. 2018Why Is My Classifier Discriminatory?cited by 143
  7. 2018The Frontiers of Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 139
  8. 2015Multi-armed Bandit Models for the Optimal Design of Clinical Trials: Benefits and Challengescited by 113
  9. 2020Ethical Machine Learning in Health Carecited by 112
  10. 2019Human-Centered Tools for Coping with Imperfect Algorithms during Medical Decision-Makingcited by 109
  11. 2019Safe Testingcited by 98
  12. 2019Confidence Intervals for Policy Evaluation in Adaptive Experimentscited by 95
  13. 2016Fairness in Reinforcement Learningcited by 93
  14. 2019Achieving Fairness in the Stochastic Multi-armed Bandit Problemcited by 77
  15. 2018Online Learning with an Unknown Fairness Metriccited by 61
  16. 2017From Parity to Preference-based Notions of Fairness in Classificationcited by 60
  17. 2020Two Simple Ways to Learn Individual Fairness Metrics from Datacited by 54
  18. 2018Causal Reasoning for Algorithmic Fairnesscited by 51
  19. 2019Metric Learning for Individual Fairnesscited by 51
  20. 2020An Empirical Characterization of Fair Machine Learning For Clinical Risk Predictioncited by 45
  21. 2017Calibrated Fairness in Banditscited by 42
  22. 2019Fair Contextual Multi-Armed Bandits: Theory and Experimentscited by 41
  23. 2019On Multi-Armed Bandit Designs for Dose-Finding Clinical Trialscited by 32
  24. 2020Metric-Free Individual Fairness in Online Learningcited by 30
  25. 2021Fair Exploration via Axiomatic Bargainingcited by 21
  26. 2018The Externalities of Exploration and How Data Diversity Helps Exploitationcited by 19
  27. 2018A Contextual-bandit-based Approach for Informed Decision-making in Clinical Trialscited by 18
  28. 2017A framework for Multi-A(rmed)/B(andit) testing with online FDR controlcited by 17
  29. 2019Preference-Informed Fairnesscited by 15
  30. 2020Learning for Dose Allocation in Adaptive Clinical Trials with Safety Constraintscited by 13
  31. 2020Response-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: from myths to practical considerationscited by 10
  32. 2020Contextual Constrained Learning for Dose-Finding Clinical Trialscited by 9
  33. 2021A unified framework for bandit multiple testingcited by 8
  34. 2021Efficient Inference Without Trading-off Regret in Bandits: An Allocation Probability Test for Thompson Samplingcited by 7
  35. 2021SDF-Bayes: Cautious Optimism in Safe Dose-Finding Clinical Trials with Drug Combinations and Heterogeneous Patient Groupscited by 6
  36. 2021Challenges in Statistical Analysis of Data Collected by a Bandit Algorithm: An Empirical Exploration in Applications to Adaptively Randomized Experimentscited by 6
  37. 2018Quantifying the Burden of Exploration and the Unfairness of Free Ridingcited by 4
  38. 2021Point estimation for adaptive trial designs I: a methodological reviewcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 4; 2025: 1.

8 papers.