Applications of machine learning in healthcare often require working with time-to-event prediction tasks including prognostication of an adverse event, re-hospitalization or death. Such outcomes are typically subject to censoring due to loss of follow up. Standard machine learning methods cannot be applied in a straightforward manner to datasets with censored outcomes. In this paper, we present auton-survival, an open-source repository of tools to streamline working with censored time-to-event or survival data. auton-survival includes tools for survival regression, adjustment in the presence of domain shift, counterfactual estimation, phenotyping for risk stratification, evaluation, as well as estimation of treatment effects. Through real world case studies employing a large subset of the SEER oncology incidence data, we demonstrate the ability of auton-survival to rapidly support data scientists in answering complex health and epidemiological questions.

Assessing the fairness of a decision making system with respect to a protected class, such as gender or race, is challenging when class membership labels are unavailable. Probabilistic models for predicting the protected class based on observable proxies, such as surname and geolocation for race, are sometimes used to impute these missing labels for compliance assessments. Empirically, these methods are observed to exaggerate disparities, but the reason why is unknown. In this paper, we decompose the biases in estimating outcome disparity via threshold-based imputation into multiple interpretable bias sources, allowing us to explain when over- or underestimation occurs. We also propose an alternative weighted estimator that uses soft classification, and show that its bias arises simply from the conditional covariance of the outcome with the true class membership. Finally, we illustrate our results with numerical simulations and a public dataset of mortgage applications, using geolocation as a proxy for race. We confirm that the bias of threshold-based imputation is generally upward, but its magnitude varies strongly with the threshold chosen. Our new weighted estimator tends to have a negative bias that is much simpler to analyze and reason about.