Path-specific effects for pulse-oximetry guided decisions in critical care

Kevin Zhang (Peking University) · Yonghan Jung (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC)) · Divyat Mahajan (Mila, Meta AI) · Karthikeyan Shanmugam (Google Deepmind India) · Shalmali Joshi (Columbia University)
bias measurementcausal formalizationcausal inferenceclinical decision-makingdoubly robust estimatoreicufairness assessmentfinite-sample guaranteesinvasive ventilationmimic-ivpath-specific effectspulse oximeterself-normalized variantsemi-synthetic datastatistical disparitiestreatment disparities

Identifying and measuring biases associated with sensitive attributes is a crucial consideration in healthcare to prevent treatment disparities. One prominent issue is inaccurate pulse oximeter readings, which tend to overestimate oxygen saturation for dark-skinned patients and misrepresent supplemental oxygen needs. Most existing research has revealed *statistical disparities* linking device measurement errors to patient outcomes in intensive care units (ICUs) without causal formalization. This study *causally* investigates how racial discrepancies in oximetry measurements affect invasive ventilation in ICU settings. We employ a causal inference-based approach using *path-specific effects* to isolate the impact of bias by race on clinical decision-making. To estimate these effects, we leverage a doubly robust estimator, propose its self-normalized variant for improved sample efficiency, and provide novel finite-sample guarantees. Our methodology is validated on semi-synthetic data and applied to two large real-world health datasets: MIMIC-IV and eICU. Contrary to prior work, our analysis reveals minimal impact of racial discrepancies on invasive ventilation rates. However, path-specific effects mediated by oxygen saturation disparity are more pronounced on ventilation duration, and the severity differs by dataset. Our work provides a novel pipeline for investigating potential disparities in clinical decision-making and, more importantly, highlights the necessity of causal methods to robustly assess fairness in healthcare.