Maximizing Predictive Performance for Small Subgroups: Functionally Adaptive Interaction Regularization (FAIR)

Courtney Paulson; Daniel Smolyak; Margr\'et V. Bjarnad\'ottir

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Maximizing Predictive Performance for Small Subgroups: Functionally Adaptive Interaction Regularization (FAIR)

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a full linear interaction model with group-size weighting and per-group lasso penalties improves small-subgroup prediction while borrowing strength from the larger group, and supports this with simulation and…

desk verdict FAIR is a clean, interpretable small-group regression method, but its dependence on which group is coded as the base is a real soft spot that needs explicit analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20190 v2 pith:IKZUODYH submitted 2024-12-28 stat.AP

Daniel Smolyak , Courtney Paulson , Margrét V. Bjarnadóttir This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.AP

keywords algorithmicfairnesspenalizedregressioninteractiontermssubgrouppredictiveperformancehealthcaremodelinglassogroup-structureddata

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

In healthcare modeling, models must often be interpretable and must not sacrifice accuracy for one group to benefit another. The paper argues that the standard toolkit—pooling, group indicators, or separate per-group models—either averages away group-specific effects or leaves small groups with too little data. Its proposed FAIR approach instead estimates a full set of group-by-covariate interactions on top of a shared base model, weights each group's loss by $\frac{1}{n_k}$, and regularizes each group's coefficients separately. In simulations across eight parameter dimensions and on a diabetes hospitalization length-of-stay dataset, this yields small-group test error at least comparable to the joint Lasso and better than the two standard baselines, while retaining familiar linear regression coefficients.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the FAIR objective function (Eq. 2): a linear model with a base group, group-specific intercepts, and group-by-covariate interaction terms, with the loss for group $k$ weighted by $\frac{1}{n_k}$ and a separate lasso penalty $\lambda_k$ on each group's coefficients. The $\frac{1}{n_k}$ weighting equalizes each group's contribution to the loss regardless of size, so the small group's fit is not drowned out; the separate $\lambda_k$ lets small-group-relevant coefficients survive when a pooled penalty would zero them; and the shared base $\beta_1$ is the channel through which the small group borrows strength from the larger group. Together these components turn regularization from a force that erases minority structure into one that can preserve it.

What would settle it

Simulate or find real data in which the small group's outcome includes a term like $\gamma X_2^2$ or a product of two covariates, and check whether FAIR's small-group MSE still beats a separately fitted lasso; if it does not, the balancing benefit is confined to linear, additive heterogeneity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

FAIR's central discovery is that giving each group its own penalty while weighting the loss by $\frac{1}{n_k}$ and entering each small group's coefficients as deviations from a shared base model lets a model learn from larger groups without ironing out small-group differences. In the objective (Eq. 2), the base coefficients $\beta_1$ are informed by all data, while each $\beta_k$ captures a sparse set of group-specific deviations; the separate $\lambda_k$ means a covariate that matters only for a small group is not driven to zero by the majority's signal. The numerical experiments vary small-group size, large-group size, noise, coefficient divergence, number of unshared coefficients, sparsity, and number of groups, and in every setting FAIR's small-group MSE matches or beats the joint Lasso and the baseline models. On the hospital dataset, the small-group (injury-diagnosis) length-of-stay MSE is lowest for FAIR, and the recovered interaction coefficients have direct clinical interpretation.

Load-bearing premise

The method's demonstrated advantage rests on subgroup differences being additive linear deviations from a shared base model; the simulations generate data from exactly that structure, and only one real dataset is tested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Healthcare teams can implement FAIR in existing glmnet-style software by passing sample weights and penalty factors, so the method is usable without new tooling.
In the base-case simulations FAIR runs about 19 times faster than joint Lasso; on the hospital data it is about 10 times faster, making group-aware regularization practical on routine data.
When groups are very similar or very dissimilar, or when every group is large, FAIR is unnecessary: group indicators or separate models are then the simpler choice, as the paper states directly.
The recovered small-group interaction coefficients carry clinical meaning (e.g., transfer admissions lengthen stay only for injury patients), so the method supplies explanation alongside prediction.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper does not analyze the objective's asymmetry in the choice of base group; a different base changes which deviations are penalized, so a testable extension is to check whether small-group MSE is stable when the base group changes, or to select the base by variance rather than size.
The simulations vary one parameter at a time from a known linear additive data-generating process; an extension would stress-test FAIR under correlated features or heteroscedastic group noise, which the paper lists as future work.
Because FAIR optimizes MSE, its gains for small groups may not translate to ranking or resource-allocation decisions; evaluating top-k calibration or allocation equity would test where the advantage persists.
FAIR is, in effect, a simple linear transfer-learning rule that shares a base model while leaving room for group deviations; comparing it to explicit transfer-learning methods could show how much of the gain comes from the weighting versus the regularization.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You asked what I think of Smolyak et al.'s FAIR paper. Here's my honest take.

What's actually new: the exact objective in Eq. 2. It's not a fundamentally new estimator—it's a full interaction model with sample weights 1/n_k and per-group lasso penalties. But the combination is clean and practical, and as far as I can tell from the cited literature, no one has written down exactly this objective before. That's enough to count as a contribution, if not a big one.

What the paper does well: the evaluation is careful. They do cross-validated grid search over all tuning parameters, 250 replications, confidence intervals, a holdout test set. They compare against separate models, group indicators, and Dondelinger's joint Lasso. The speed advantage over joint Lasso (19x in simulation) is real and relevant for practitioners. The writing is clear, and the interpretability point is well taken for healthcare settings.

Now the soft spots. The base-group issue is the most important. The stress-test note is right: Eq. 2 is not invariant to which group you call β1. The base group gets its own penalty λ1, the others get penalties on deviations. The authors say they choose an "arbitrary large group" as base, but the choice is not arbitrary in effect. If you swap a small group into the base position, that group's coefficients are estimated from fewer observations and penalized differently. The simulation and real-data experiments always use the large group as base, so the reported small-group gains may be partly a consequence of that favorable coding. This is not fatal—one can argue a large base is a sensible default—but the paper's own language overstates it as arbitrary. They should either analyze sensitivity to the base choice or acknowledge the asymmetry directly.

Other concerns, in proportion: simulations generate data from the same linear interaction model FAIR assumes, which mildly favors it; joint Lasso often ties FAIR within noise; there's only one real dataset; code is "available by request" rather than posted. None of these are deal-breakers, but together they temper the novelty claim.

Who this is for: healthcare modelers doing penalized regression with imbalanced groups, who want an interpretable way to improve small-group prediction without switching to a black box. For that audience, the paper is useful. It deserves a serious referee, but I'd send it back for revisions on the base-group sensitivity analysis and public code.

My recommendation: engage with it, but make the authors address the base-group asymmetry before publication.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FAIR, a linear regression framework that fits a full interaction model between group membership and all covariates, weights samples by 1/n_k, and applies independent Lasso penalties per group. It compares FAIR to separate models, a group-indicator model, and the joint Lasso on simulated data with varied group sizes, noise, shared/unshared coefficients, and numbers of groups, as well as on a diabetes hospital length-of-stay dataset with Respiratory as the large group and Injury as the small group. The central claim is that FAIR balances information sharing from larger groups with tailoring to small groups, improving small-group MSE while retaining interpretability.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, FAIR is a practically valuable, interpretable alternative to joint Lasso: it can be implemented in glmnet, is roughly 10--19 times faster than the joint Lasso in the reported timings, and the experimental protocol is careful (cross-validated grid search, 250 replications, holdout test sets, confidence intervals). The significance is moderate, however: the simulations generate data from exactly the linear interaction structure that FAIR estimates, the advantage over joint Lasso is often within sampling error, and the real-world evidence is a single dataset. The Discussion honestly notes that FAIR is unnecessary for very similar or very dissimilar groups and for large groups, but this scope restriction is not carried into the abstract.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.2, Eq. (2)] The FAIR objective is not invariant to which group is selected as the base. The paper states, 'We first choose an arbitrary "large" group as a base group,' but every simulation and the real-data experiment use the large group as β1. Because the penalty is λ1||β1|| + Σ_{k>1} λ_k||β_k||, swapping a small group into the base position changes which coefficients receive the base penalty and which receive deviation penalties, even after tuning λ_k. The central small-group MSE comparison may therefore depend on this coding choice. Please rerun the base-case simulation and the hospital-data experiment with each group as the base (for K=2, this includes the small group as β1) and report small-group MSE for all codings; if the codings give materially different results, the claimed advantage should be stated as conditional on the base-group choice, not as a property of the FAIR framework.
[Section 4 and Appendix A, Eq. (3)] The simulation data are generated as y_k = β_k X_k + ε_k, which is exactly the class of linear group-interaction models that FAIR estimates, with shared coefficients across groups. This setup is favorable to FAIR and does not exercise robustness to nonlinear or non-additive heterogeneity. Please add at least one misspecification scenario (for example, a nonlinear shared component, group-dependent feature covariances, or a true model with no interactions) and report whether FAIR retains its advantage; alternatively, restrict the abstract's general claim to the linear-interaction setting.
[Section 4.2 and Figures 1–2] The abstract and Section 4.2 claim that FAIR outperforms the joint Lasso, but the text reports FAIR is 'similar (but slightly worse)' in the base case and 'often within the margin of error' in the parameter sweeps. Please report paired per-replication differences between FAIR and joint Lasso with confidence intervals, and state whether the difference is statistically distinguishable. If the difference is not distinguishable, the contribution should be framed as comparable accuracy with a speed and implementation advantage, which is a weaker but still useful claim.
[Section 5] The real-world evidence rests on one dataset (Diabetes 130-US hospitals) and one group split (Respiratory versus Injury). Given that the abstract claims a general healthcare modeling framework, this single demonstration is not sufficient to establish generalizability. Please either add additional datasets or group definitions within the same dataset, or revise the abstract and Discussion to state that the health-data evidence is illustrative rather than general.

minor comments (5)

[Section 6] The Discussion acknowledges that FAIR is unnecessary when groups are very similar or very dissimilar and when all groups are large; this scope limitation should be stated in the abstract, which currently presents FAIR as a general solution.
[Data and Code Availability] The code is 'available by request' rather than in a persistent public repository; for a methods paper, a public repository or archival DOI would substantially improve reproducibility.
[Appendix C] The speed comparison reports times for 'Hospital' and 'Simulation' but does not specify the computing platform, R version, or package versions; please add this information so the 19x and 10x speed claims are reproducible.
[Section 4.3] The glmnet implementation is mentioned but the exact call (including the weights and penalty.factor arguments) is not provided; including the call would help practitioners adopt the method.
[References] The reference to Pessach and Shmueli (2022) contains a typo ('Ferbruary' instead of 'February'); please correct it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FAIR is an empirical method comparison whose claims rest on simulations and an independent real-data benchmark, not on a self-citation or on predictions that reduce to fitted inputs.

full rationale

FAIR (Eq. 2) is proposed as an objective function, not derived from a fitted quantity. The paper's evidence is empirical: simulated comparisons under a stated data-generating process (Appendix A, Eq. 3: y_k = beta_k X_k + epsilon_k) and a real-data experiment on the publicly available Diabetes 130-US hospitals dataset. Although the simulation DGP is a linear group-interaction model matching FAIR's functional form, this is a standard simulation design and not circular: the simulation is not used to estimate parameters that are then renamed as predictions, and the real-data comparison against separate models, a group-indicator model, and the externally published joint Lasso provides independent grounding. There are no load-bearing self-citations; all related-work citations are to external authors. The base-group asymmetry noted in Section 3.2 is a robustness and identifiability concern, not a circularity, because the paper does not claim invariance and does not derive its reported small-group improvement from the base-group definition. No equation in the paper reduces to another by construction, and no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's core free ingredient is one penalty per group; the simulation data-generating process assumes linear additive group deviations; no new physical or statistical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

Per-group sparsity penalty lambda_k (k=1,...,K) = selected by cross-validated grid search
The core mechanism of FAIR. Higher lambda_k shrinks group k's deviations toward zero; no theory specifies these values, and differences in lambda_k determine how much each group borrows from the base model.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Outcomes follow a linear group-interaction model: y_k = beta_k X_k + epsilon_k (Appendix A, Eq. 3)
Used to generate every simulated benchmark; FAIR estimates exactly this structure, so simulation results are partly a check of the model's own assumptions.
domain assumption A single arbitrary base group can represent shared structure, and per-group deviations capture all heterogeneity
The objective reparameterizes group coefficients as beta_1 + beta_k; with separate penalties the choice of base group changes the estimates, but the paper does not analyze this.
domain assumption MSE on the small group is the appropriate performance and fairness target
Section 3.3 defines evaluation by small-group MSE; other fairness metrics or overall accuracy could change the ranking.
domain assumption glmnet's weighted lasso with penalty factors implements the FAIR objective
Section 4.3 relies on this software claim; no custom solver or formal proof is given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Maximizing Predictive Performance for Small Subgroups: Functionally Adaptive Interaction Regularization (FAIR)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IKZUODYH

@misc{pith2026241220190,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Maximizing Predictive Performance for Small Subgroups: Functionally Adaptive Interaction Regularization (FAIR)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IKZUODYH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20190}
}

read the original abstract

In many healthcare settings, it is both critical to consider fairness when building analytical applications but also uniquely unacceptable to lower model performance for one group to match that of another (e.g. fairness cannot be achieved by lowering the diagnostic ability of a model for one group to match that of another and lose overall diagnostic power). Therefore a modeler needs to maximize model performance across groups as much as possible, often while maintaining a model's interpretability, which is a challenge for a number of reasons. In this paper we therefore suggest a new modeling framework, FAIR, to maximize performance across imbalanced groups, based on existing linear regression approaches already commonly used in healthcare settings. We propose a full linear interaction model between groups and all other covariates, paired with a weighting of samples by group size and independent regularization penalties for each group. This efficient approach overcomes many of the limitations in current approaches and manages to balance learning from other groups with tailoring prediction to the small focal group(s). FAIR has an added advantage in that it still allows for model interpretability in research and clinical settings. We demonstrate its usefulness with numerical and health data experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20190 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Performance of all modeling approaches on the base case, using a testing set of 1000 samples per group, including 95% confidence interval across 250 iterations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Performance of the FAIR approach, the baseline models and joint Lasso on the small group as each parameter (indicated by the x-axis label) is varied - all other parameters held constant. Overall, we see two clear patterns: (1) FAIR consistently outperforms the two baseline methods, and (2) FAIR also outperforms the joint Lasso, but often within the margin of error. Beginning from the topleft plot, we see that as s… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Model testing performance on length of stay prediction, including 95% confidence interval on 250 random samples. To demonstrate a use case of both FAIR and the comparison models in practice, we apply the models to the “Diabetes 130-US hospitals for years 1999- 2008” dataset (Strack et al., 2014). This dataset contains extensive information on diabetic patients’ inpatient stays, including length of stay, admission s… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Coefficients of FAIR-Lasso on the Diabetes Hospital Dataset. Blue bars indicate the coefficients of the base/large group (“Respiratory” patients) and orange for the coefficients of the small group (“Injury” patients). specific intercept or an admission by transfer (sho…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

Predicting with proxies: Transfer learning in high dimension

Hamsa Bastani. Predicting with proxies: Transfer learning in high dimension. Management Science, 67 0 (5): 0 2964--2984, 2021

2021
[2]

Automating procedurally fair feature selection in machine learning

Clara Belitz, Lan Jiang, and Nigel Bosch. Automating procedurally fair feature selection in machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 379--389, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Ethical machine learning in healthcare

Irene Y Chen, Emma Pierson, Sherri Rose, Shalmali Joshi, Kadija Ferryman, and Marzyeh Ghassemi. Ethical machine learning in healthcare. Annual review of biomedical data science, 4: 0 123--144, 2021

work page 2021
[4]

Symptoms across the continuum of acute coronary syndromes: differences between women and men

Holli A DeVon, Catherine J Ryan, Amy L Ochs, and Moshe Shapiro. Symptoms across the continuum of acute coronary syndromes: differences between women and men. American journal of critical care, 17 0 (1): 0 14--24, 2008

work page 2008
[5]

Joint Fairness Model with Applications to Risk Predictions for Under-represented Populations

Hyungrok Do, Shinjini Nandi, Preston Putzel, Padhraic Smyth, and Judy Zhong. Joint fairness model with applications to risk predictions for under-represented populations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.04648, 2021

work page Pith review arXiv 2021
[6]

The joint lasso: high-dimensional regression for group structured data

Frank Dondelinger, Sach Mukherjee, and Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. The joint lasso: high-dimensional regression for group structured data. Biostatistics, 21 0 (2): 0 219--235, 2020

work page 2020
[7]

Black-white differences in the use of medical care by the elderly: a contemporary analysis

Jos \'e J Escarce and Frank W Puffer. Black-white differences in the use of medical care by the elderly: a contemporary analysis. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997

work page 1997
[8]

Fair Machine Learning in Healthcare: A Review

Qizhang Feng, Mengnan Du, Na Zou, and Xia Hu. Fair machine learning in healthcare: A review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.14397, 2022

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

Show all 28 references

[9]

Multicalibration as boosting for regression

Ira Globus-Harris, Declan Harrison, Michael Kearns, Aaron Roth, and Jessica Sorrell. Multicalibration as boosting for regression. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11459–--11492, 2023

2023
[10]

2013 acc/aha guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the american college of cardiology/american heart association task force on practice guidelines

David C Goff Jr, Donald M Lloyd-Jones, Glen Bennett, Sean Coady, Ralph B D’agostino, Raymond Gibbons, Philip Greenland, Daniel T Lackland, Daniel Levy, Christopher J O’donnell, et al. 2013 acc/aha guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the american col...

2013
[11]

A transfer learning approach based on random forest with application to breast cancer prediction in underrepresented populations

Tian Gu, Yi Han, and Rui Duan. A transfer learning approach based on random forest with application to breast cancer prediction in underrepresented populations. In PACIFIC SYMPOSIUM ON BIOCOMPUTING 2023: Kohala Coast, Hawaii, USA, 3--7 January 2023, pages 186--197. World Scien...

2023
[12]

An introduction to glmnet

Trevor Hastie, Junyang Qian, and Kenneth Tay. An introduction to glmnet. CRAN R Repositary, 5: 0 1--35, 2021

2021
[13]

Kim, Omer Reingold, and Guy N

Ursula Hebert-Johnson, Michael P. Kim, Omer Reingold, and Guy N. Rothblum. Multicalibration: Calibration for the (computationally-identifiable) masses. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, Stockholm, Sweden, PMLR 80, 2018

2018
[14]

Issitt, Mario Cortina-Borja, William Bryant, Stuart Bowyer, Andrew M

Richard W. Issitt, Mario Cortina-Borja, William Bryant, Stuart Bowyer, Andrew M. Taylor, and Neil Sebire. Classification performance of neural networks versus logistic regression models: Evidence from healthcare practice. Cureus, 14 0 (2), 2022

2022
[15]

Kan, Hadi Kharrazi, Hsien-Yen Chang, Dave Bodycombe, Klaus Lemke, and Jonathan P

Hong J. Kan, Hadi Kharrazi, Hsien-Yen Chang, Dave Bodycombe, Klaus Lemke, and Jonathan P. Weiner. Exploring the use of machine learning for risk adjustment: A comparison of standard and penalized linear regression models in predicting health care costs in older adults. PLoS On...

2019
[16]

La Cava, Elle Lett, and Guangya Wan

William G. La Cava, Elle Lett, and Guangya Wan. Fair admission risk prediction with proportional multicalibration. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 209: 0 350–--378, 2023

2023
[17]

A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate

Andrew S Levey, Lesley A Stevens, Christopher H Schmid, Yaping Zhang, Alejandro F Castro III, Harold I Feldman, John W Kusek, Paul Eggers, Frederick Van Lente, Tom Greene, et al. A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Annals of internal medicine, 150 0 (9): 0 6...

2009
[18]

Targeting underrepresented populations in precision medicine: A federated transfer learning approach

Sai Li, Tianxi Cai, and Rui Duan. Targeting underrepresented populations in precision medicine: A federated transfer learning approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.12112, 2021

2021 arXiv
[19]

A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning

Ninareh Mehrabi, Fred Morstatter, Nripsuta Saxena, Kristina Lerman, and Aram Galstyan. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 54 0 (6), July 2021

2021
[20]

Enrollment of racial minorities in clinical trials: old problem assumes new urgency in the age of immunotherapy

Bassel Nazha, Manoj Mishra, Rebecca Pentz, and Taofeek K Owonikoko. Enrollment of racial minorities in clinical trials: old problem assumes new urgency in the age of immunotherapy. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book, 39: 0 3--10, 2019

2019
[21]

A review on fairness in machine learning

Dana Pessach and Erez Shmueli. A review on fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 55 0 (3), Ferbruary 2022

2022
[22]

Impact of hba1c measurement on hospital readmission rates: analysis of 70,000 clinical database patient records

Beata Strack, Jonathan P DeShazo, Chris Gennings, Juan L Olmo, Sebastian Ventura, Krzysztof J Cios, John N Clore, et al. Impact of hba1c measurement on hospital readmission rates: analysis of 70,000 clinical database patient records. BioMed research international, 2014, 2014

2014
[23]

Sparsity and smoothness via the fused lasso

Robert Tibshirani and Michael Saunders. Sparsity and smoothness via the fused lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 67: 0 91--108, 2005

2005
[24]

Fairness without harm: Decoupled classifiers with preference guarantees

Berk Ustun, Yang Liu, and David Parkes. Fairness without harm: Decoupled classifiers with preference guarantees. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 6373--6382. PMLR, 2019

2019
[25]

Machine learning versus regression modelling in predicting individual healthcare costs from a representative sample of the nationwide claims database in france

Alexandre Vimont, Henri Leleu, and Isabelle Durand-Zaleski. Machine learning versus regression modelling in predicting individual healthcare costs from a representative sample of the nationwide claims database in france. European Journal of Health Economics, 23: 0 211--223, 2022

2022
[26]

Steyerberg, Georg Heinze, and Geraldine Rauch

Christine Wallisch, Paul Bach, Lorena Hafermann, Nadja Klein, Willi Sauerbrei, Ewout W. Steyerberg, Georg Heinze, and Geraldine Rauch. Review of guidance papers on regression modeling in statistical series of medical journals. PLoS One, 17 0 (1), January 2022

2022
[27]

Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: Learning classification without disparate mistreatment

Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez Rodriguez, and Krishna P Gummadi. Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: Learning classification without disparate mistreatment. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web, pages 1171...

2017
[28]

Fair regression for health care spending

Anna Zink and Sherri Rose. Fair regression for health care spending. Biometrics, 76 0 (3): 0 973--982, 2020

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Predicting with proxies: Transfer learning in high dimension

Hamsa Bastani. Predicting with proxies: Transfer learning in high dimension. Management Science, 67 0 (5): 0 2964--2984, 2021

2021

[2] [2]

Automating procedurally fair feature selection in machine learning

Clara Belitz, Lan Jiang, and Nigel Bosch. Automating procedurally fair feature selection in machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 379--389, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Ethical machine learning in healthcare

Irene Y Chen, Emma Pierson, Sherri Rose, Shalmali Joshi, Kadija Ferryman, and Marzyeh Ghassemi. Ethical machine learning in healthcare. Annual review of biomedical data science, 4: 0 123--144, 2021

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Symptoms across the continuum of acute coronary syndromes: differences between women and men

Holli A DeVon, Catherine J Ryan, Amy L Ochs, and Moshe Shapiro. Symptoms across the continuum of acute coronary syndromes: differences between women and men. American journal of critical care, 17 0 (1): 0 14--24, 2008

work page 2008

[5] [5]

Joint Fairness Model with Applications to Risk Predictions for Under-represented Populations

Hyungrok Do, Shinjini Nandi, Preston Putzel, Padhraic Smyth, and Judy Zhong. Joint fairness model with applications to risk predictions for under-represented populations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.04648, 2021

work page Pith review arXiv 2021

[6] [6]

The joint lasso: high-dimensional regression for group structured data

Frank Dondelinger, Sach Mukherjee, and Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. The joint lasso: high-dimensional regression for group structured data. Biostatistics, 21 0 (2): 0 219--235, 2020

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Black-white differences in the use of medical care by the elderly: a contemporary analysis

Jos \'e J Escarce and Frank W Puffer. Black-white differences in the use of medical care by the elderly: a contemporary analysis. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997

work page 1997

[8] [8]

Fair Machine Learning in Healthcare: A Review

Qizhang Feng, Mengnan Du, Na Zou, and Xia Hu. Fair machine learning in healthcare: A review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.14397, 2022

work page Pith review arXiv 2022