Machine learning (ML) is pervasively deployed.

Machine learning (ML) is pervasively deployed.

This study analyzes tract-level real estate ownership patterns in New York State (NYS) and New York City (NYC) to uncover racial disparities. We use an advanced race/ethnicity imputation model (LSTM+Geo with XGBoost filtering, validated at 89.2% accuracy) to compare the predicted racial composition of property owners to the resident population from census data. We examine both a Full Model (statewide) and a Name-Only LSTM Model (NYC) to assess how incorporating geospatial context affects our predictions and disparity estimates. The results reveal significant inequities: White individuals hold a disproportionate share of properties and property value relative to their population, while Black, Hispanic, and Asian communities are underrepresented as property owners. These disparities are most pronounced in minority-majority neighborhoods, where ownership is predominantly White despite a predominantly non-White population. Corporate ownership (LLCs, trusts, etc.) exacerbates these gaps by reducing owner-occupied opportunities in urban minority communities. We provide a breakdown of ownership vs. population by race for majority-White, -Black, -Hispanic, and -Asian tracts, identify those with extreme ownership disparities, and compare patterns in urban, suburban, and rural contexts. The findings underscore persistent racial inequity in property ownership, reflecting broader historical and socio-economic forces, and highlight the importance of data-driven approaches to address these issues.

This study employs a robust analytical framework to uncover patterns in survival outcomes among breast cancer patients from diverse racial and geographical backgrounds. This research uses the SEER 2021 dataset to analyze breast cancer survival outcomes to identify and comprehend dissimilarities. Our approach integrates exploratory data analysis (EDA), through this we identify key variables that influence survival rates and employ survival analysis techniques, including the Kaplan-Meier estimator and log-rank test and the advanced modeling Cox Proportional Hazards model to determine how survival rates vary across racial groups and countries. Model validation and interpretation are undertaken to ensure the reliability of our findings, which are documented comprehensively to inform policymakers and healthcare professionals. The outcome of this paper is a detailed version of statistical analysis that not just highlights disparities in breast cancer treatment and care but also serves as a foundational tool for developing targeted interventions to address the inequalities effectively. Through this research, our aim is to contribute to the global efforts to improve breast cancer outcomes and reduce treatment disparities.

Racial disparities in healthcare expenditures are well-documented, yet the underlying drivers remain complex and require further investigation. This study employs causal and counterfactual path-specific effects to quantify how various factors, including socioeconomic status, insurance access, health behaviors, and health status, mediate these disparities. Using data from the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey, we estimate how expenditures would differ under counterfactual scenarios in which the values of specific mediators were aligned across racial groups along selected causal pathways. A key challenge in this analysis is ensuring robustness against model misspecification while addressing the zero-inflation and right-skewness of healthcare expenditures. For reliable inference, we derive asymptotically linear estimators by integrating influence function-based techniques with flexible machine learning methods, including super learners and a two-part model tailored to the zero-inflated, right-skewed nature of healthcare expenditures.

As interest in implementing artificial intelligence (AI) in medical systems grows, discussion continues on how to evaluate the fairness of these systems, or the disparities they may perpetuate. Socioeconomic status (SES) is commonly included in machine learning models to control for health inequities, with the underlying assumption that increased SES is associated with better health. In this work, we considered a large cohort of patients from the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City to investigate the effect of patient SES, race, and sex on schizophrenia (SCZ) diagnosis rates via a logistic regression model. Within an intersectional framework, patient SES, race, and sex were found to have significant interactions. Our findings showed that increased SES is associated with a higher probability of obtaining a SCZ diagnosis in Black Americans ($\beta=4.1\times10^{-8}$, $SE=4.5\times10^{-9}$, $p < 0.001$). Whereas high SES acts as a protective factor for SCZ diagnosis in White Americans ($\beta=-4.1\times10^{-8}$, $SE=6.7\times10^{-9}$, $p < 0.001$). Further investigation is needed to reliably explain and quantify health disparities. Nevertheless, we advocate that building fair AI tools for the health care space requires recognizing the intersectionality of sociodemographic factors.

We are interested in developing a data-driven method to evaluate race-induced biases in law enforcement systems. While the recent works have addressed this question in the context of police-civilian interactions using police stop data, they have two key limitations. First, bias can only be properly quantified if true criminality is accounted for in addition to race, but it is absent in prior works. Second, law enforcement systems are multi-stage and hence it is important to isolate the true source of bias within the "causal chain of interactions" rather than simply focusing on the end outcome; this can help guide reforms. In this work, we address these challenges by presenting a multi-stage causal framework incorporating criminality. We provide a theoretical characterization and an associated data-driven method to evaluate (a) the presence of any form of racial bias, and (b) if so, the primary source of such a bias in terms of race and criminality. Our framework identifies three canonical scenarios with distinct characteristics: in settings like (1) airport security, the primary source of observed bias against a race is likely to be bias in law enforcement against innocents of that race; (2) AI-empowered policing, the primary source of observed bias against a race is likely to be bias in law enforcement against criminals of that race; and (3) police-civilian interaction, the primary source of observed bias against a race could be bias in law enforcement against that race or bias from the general public in reporting against the other race. Through an extensive empirical study using police-civilian interaction data and 911 call data, we find an instance of such a counter-intuitive phenomenon: in New Orleans, the observed bias is against the majority race and the likely reason for it is the over-reporting (via 911 calls) of incidents involving the minority race by the general public.

Machine learning is traditionally studied at the model level: researchers measure and improve the accuracy, robustness, bias, efficiency, and other dimensions of specific models. In practice, the societal impact of machine learning is determined by the surrounding context of machine learning deployments. To capture this, we introduce ecosystem-level analysis: rather than analyzing a single model, we consider the collection of models that are deployed in a given context. For example, ecosystem-level analysis in hiring recognizes that a job candidate's outcomes are not only determined by a single hiring algorithm or firm but instead by the collective decisions of all the firms they applied to. Across three modalities (text, images, speech) and 11 datasets, we establish a clear trend: deployed machine learning is prone to systemic failure, meaning some users are exclusively misclassified by all models available. Even when individual models improve at the population level over time, we find these improvements rarely reduce the prevalence of systemic failure. Instead, the benefits of these improvements predominantly accrue to individuals who are already correctly classified by other models. In light of these trends, we consider medical imaging for dermatology where the costs of systemic failure are especially high. While traditional analyses reveal racial performance disparities for both models and humans, ecosystem-level analysis reveals new forms of racial disparity in model predictions that do not present in human predictions. These examples demonstrate ecosystem-level analysis has unique strengths for characterizing the societal impact of machine learning.

Electronic health records (EHRs) serve as an essential data source for the envisioned artificial intelligence (AI)-driven transformation in healthcare. However, clinician biases reflected in EHR notes can lead to AI models inheriting and amplifying these biases, perpetuating health disparities. This study investigates the impact of stigmatizing language (SL) in EHR notes on mortality prediction using a Transformer-based deep learning model and explainable AI (XAI) techniques. Our findings demonstrate that SL written by clinicians adversely affects AI performance, particularly so for black patients, highlighting SL as a source of racial disparity in AI model development. To explore an operationally efficient way to mitigate SL's impact, we investigate patterns in the generation of SL through a clinicians' collaborative network, identifying central clinicians as having a stronger impact on racial disparity in the AI model. We find that removing SL written by central clinicians is a more efficient bias reduction strategy than eliminating all SL in the entire corpus of data. This study provides actionable insights for responsible AI development and contributes to understanding clinician behavior and EHR note writing in healthcare.

The study of biases, such as gender or racial biases, is an important topic in the social and behavioural sciences. However, the literature does not always clearly define the concept. Definitions of bias are often ambiguous or not provided at all. To study biases in a precise manner, it is important to have a well-defined concept of bias. We propose to define bias as a direct causal effect that is unjustified. We propose to define the closely related concept of disparity as a direct or indirect causal effect that includes a bias. Our proposed definitions can be used to study biases and disparities in a more rigorous and systematic way. We compare our definitions of bias and disparity with various criteria of fairness introduced in the artificial intelligence literature. We also illustrate our definitions in two case studies, focusing on gender bias in science and racial bias in police shootings. Our proposed definitions aim to contribute to a better appreciation of the causal intricacies of studies of biases and disparities. We hope that this will also promote an improved understanding of the policy implications of such studies.