Competing Risks: Impact on Risk Estimation and Algorithmic Fairness

TL;DR

This paper reveals that treating competing risks as censoring in survival analysis causes bias and disparities, emphasizing the need to properly model competing risks for fairer and more accurate risk predictions.

Contribution

It provides a theoretical framework to quantify errors from misclassifying competing risks and demonstrates the fairness implications through empirical analysis.

Findings

Ignoring competing risks biases survival estimates

Misclassification amplifies disparities across demographic groups

Proper modeling of competing risks improves fairness and accuracy

Abstract

Accurate time-to-event prediction is integral to decision-making, informing medical guidelines, hiring decisions, and resource allocation. Survival analysis, the quantitative framework used to model time-to-event data, accounts for patients who do not experience the event of interest during the study period, known as censored patients. However, many patients experience events that prevent the observation of the outcome of interest. These competing risks are often treated as censoring, a practice frequently overlooked due to a limited understanding of its consequences. Our work theoretically demonstrates why treating competing risks as censoring introduces substantial bias in survival estimates, leading to systematic overestimation of risk and, critically, amplifying disparities. First, we formalize the problem of misclassifying competing risks as censoring and quantify the resulting error in survival estimates. Specifically, we develop a framework to estimate this error and demonstrate the associated implications for predictive performance and algorithmic fairness. Furthermore, we examine how differing risk profiles across demographic groups lead to group-specific errors, potentially exacerbating existing disparities. Our findings, supported by an empirical analysis of cardiovascular management, demonstrate that ignoring competing risks disproportionately impacts the individuals most at risk of these events, potentially accentuating inequity. By quantifying the error and highlighting the fairness implications of the common practice of considering competing risks as censoring, our work provides a critical insight into the development of survival models: practitioners must account for competing risks to improve accuracy, reduce disparities in risk assessment, and better inform downstream decisions.