Estimating the prevalence of a medical condition, or the proportion of the population in which it occurs, is a fundamental problem in healthcare and public health. Accurate estimates of the relative prevalence across groups -- capturing, for example, that a condition affects women more frequently than men -- facilitate effective and equitable health policy which prioritizes groups who are disproportionately affected by a condition. However, it is difficult to estimate relative prevalence when a medical condition is underreported. In this work, we provide a method for accurately estimating the relative prevalence of underreported medical conditions, building upon the positive unlabeled learning framework. We show that under the commonly made covariate shift assumption -- i.e., that the probability of having a disease conditional on symptoms remains constant across groups -- we can recover the relative prevalence, even without restrictive assumptions commonly made in positive unlabeled learning and even if it is impossible to recover the absolute prevalence. We conduct experiments on synthetic and real health data which demonstrate our method's ability to recover the relative prevalence more accurately than do baselines, and demonstrate the method's robustness to plausible violations of the covariate shift assumption. We conclude by illustrating the applicability of our method to case studies of intimate partner violence and hate speech.

An increasing number of reports raise concerns about the risk that machine learning algorithms could amplify health disparities due to biases …

Deep learning models have shown great potential for image-based diagnosis assisting clinical decision making. At the same time, an increasing number of reports raise concerns about the potential risk that machine learning could amplify existing health disparities due to human biases that are embedded in the training data. It is of great importance to carefully investigate the extent to which biases may be reproduced or even amplified if we wish to build fair artificial intelligence systems. Seyyed-Kalantari et al. advance this conversation by analysing the performance of a disease classifier across population subgroups. They raise performance disparities related to underdiagnosis as a point of concern; we identify areas from this analysis which we believe deserve additional attention. Specifically, we wish to highlight some theoretical and practical difficulties associated with assessing model fairness through testing on data drawn from the same biased distribution as the training data, especially when the sources and amount of biases are unknown.