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.

Machine learning risks reinforcing biases present in data, and, as we argue in this work, in what is absent from data. In healthcare, biases have marked medical history, leading to unequal care affecting marginalised groups. Patterns in missing data often reflect these group discrepancies, but the algorithmic fairness implications of group-specific missingness are not well understood. Despite its potential impact, imputation is often an overlooked preprocessing step, with attention placed on the reduction of reconstruction error and overall performance, ignoring how imputation can affect groups differently. Our work studies how imputation choices affect reconstruction errors across groups and algorithmic fairness properties of downstream predictions.

Time-to-event modelling, known as survival analysis, differs from standard regression as it addresses censoring in patients who do not experience the event of interest. Despite competitive performances in tackling this problem, machine learning methods often ignore other competing risks that preclude the event of interest. This practice biases the survival estimation. Extensions to address this challenge often rely on parametric assumptions or numerical estimations leading to sub-optimal survival approximations. This paper leverages constrained monotonic neural networks to model each competing survival distribution. This modelling choice ensures the exact likelihood maximisation at a reduced computational cost by using automatic differentiation. The effectiveness of the solution is demonstrated on one synthetic and three medical datasets. Finally, we discuss the implications of considering competing risks when developing risk scores for medical practice.

Machine learning (ML) is increasingly being used to support high-stakes decisions, a trend owed in part to its promise of superior predictive power relative to human assessment. However, there is frequently a gap between decision objectives and what is captured in the observed outcomes used as labels to train ML models. As a result, machine learning models may fail to capture important dimensions of decision criteria, hampering their utility for decision support. In this work, we explore the use of historical expert decisions as a rich -- yet imperfect -- source of information that is commonly available in organizational information systems, and show that it can be leveraged to bridge the gap between decision objectives and algorithm objectives. We consider the problem of estimating expert consistency indirectly when each case in the data is assessed by a single expert, and propose influence function-based methodology as a solution to this problem. We then incorporate the estimated expert consistency into a predictive model through a training-time label amalgamation approach. This approach allows ML models to learn from experts when there is inferred expert consistency, and from observed labels otherwise. We also propose alternative ways of leveraging inferred consistency via hybrid and deferral models. In our empirical evaluation, focused on the context of child maltreatment hotline screenings, we show that (1) there are high-risk cases whose risk is considered by the experts but not wholly captured in the target labels used to train a deployed model, and (2) the proposed approach significantly improves precision for these cases.