SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2305.19407

FRAMM: Fair Ranking with Missing Modalities for Clinical Trial Site Selection

Abstract

Despite many efforts to address the disparities, the underrepresentation of gender, racial, and ethnic minorities in clinical trials remains a problem and undermines the efficacy of treatments on minorities. This paper focuses on the trial site selection task and proposes FRAMM, a deep reinforcement learning framework for fair trial site selection. We focus on addressing two real-world challenges that affect fair trial sites selection: the data modalities are often not complete for many potential trial sites, and the site selection needs to simultaneously optimize for both enrollment and diversity since the problem is necessarily a trade-off between the two with the only possible way to increase diversity post-selection being through limiting enrollment via caps. To address the missing data challenge, FRAMM has a modality encoder with a masked cross-attention mechanism for handling missing data, bypassing data imputation and the need for complete data in training. To handle the need for making efficient trade-offs, FRAMM uses deep reinforcement learning with a specifically designed reward function that simultaneously optimizes for both enrollment and fairness. We evaluate FRAMM using 4,392 real-world clinical trials ranging from 2016 to 2021 and show that FRAMM outperforms the leading baseline in enrollment-only settings while also achieving large gains in diversity. Specifically, it is able to produce a 9% improvement in diversity with similar enrollment levels over the leading baselines. That improved diversity is further manifested in achieving up to a 14% increase in Hispanic enrollment, 27% increase in Black enrollment, and 60% increase in Asian enrollment compared to selecting sites with an enrollment-only model.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Brandon Theodorou, Lucas Glass, Cao Xiao, Jimeng Sun. 2023-05-30. FRAMM: Fair Ranking with Missing Modalities for Clinical Trial Site Selection. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.19407

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI