Abstract
There is limited research on fairness in automated decision-making systems in the clinical domain, particularly in the mental health domain. Our study explores clinicians' perceptions of AI fairness through two distinct scenarios: violence risk assessment and depression phenotype recognition using textual clinical notes. We engage with clinicians through semi-structured interviews to understand their fairness perceptions and to identify appropriate quantitative fairness objectives for these scenarios. Then, we compare a set of bias mitigation strategies developed to improve at least one of the four selected fairness objectives. Our findings underscore the importance of carefully selecting fairness measures, as prioritizing less relevant measures can have a detrimental rather than a beneficial effect on model behavior in real-world clinical use.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
