Where Is a Prediction Model Miscalibrated, and for Whom? Local Audits in Outcome-Learned Pockets

Risk prediction models are frequently evaluated with AUC, which means that during evaluation we are blind to performance heterogeneity, which could lead to bad decision-making in clinics. In this work, we aim to change that by identifying patient cohorts for whom the risk prediction model might not be an accurate predictor. To separate these cohorts, we use a version of the weighted AUC, which we call Localized AUC or LAUC. Using this metric, we build a method that we coin LOCATOR. This method is able to identify cohorts of patients for whom the risk prediction model is inaccurate. We test this method both in real-world data and in simulations. We also build a statistical background for the use of Localized AUC for our purposes.

Clinical risk models routinely achieve strong aggregate performance while producing materially different error rates across patient subgroups. Audit pipelines have been proposed to catch this, but their components are rarely stress-tested, so it is unclear which parts of an audit can be trusted and under what conditions. We present KAISEN, a five-phase audit pipeline covering subgroup stratification, disparity measurement, mechanism diagnostics, post-hoc mitigation, and drift monitoring, evaluated to the point of failure on a synthetic benchmark of 16 disease tasks, 15 social-determinant axes from Healthy People 2030, and three prespecified intersections. Four findings follow. (i) Significance tracks each axis's gap against its own minimum detectable effect: rank correlation between significance count and raw equalized-odds difference (EOD) across the 15 axes is rho = 0.56, rising to rho = 0.78 once EOD is standardized by that floor. (ii) Per-group threshold optimization reduces EOD in 48 of 48 held-out runs (paired delta = -0.285, 95% CI [-0.313, -0.252]), while group-wise Platt scaling -- the better calibrator -- behaves as a coin flip on EOD (19 of 48 runs improved, 95% CI [0.26, 0.55]) with mean effect near zero, so what an audit should report is the variance, not the average. (iii) The mechanism diagnostic classifies 144 of 144 controlled cases correctly but recovers none of 48 model-driven cases under proxy misspecification, with no signal that it failed. (iv) CUSUM failures and false alarms track cohort realization far more than disease: at the reference threshold, all 27 false alarms and 7 of 8 missed shifts come from different seeds (chi-squared p = 0.002), so a threshold tuned on one cohort fails to transfer. All results are synthetic with known ground truth and do not establish clinical validity. Code, artifacts, and scripts reproducing every number are released.

Fairness evaluation of clinical prediction models for binary outcomes often involves fairness metrics that compare the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, or c-statistic) across subgroups. However, the AUC has been shown to be a non-collapsible metric, meaning that its subgroup specific and overall values are not directly comparable as often implicitly assumed. This raises important questions about how existing AUC-based fairness metrics should be used and interpreted. We examine eight AUC-based fairness metrics proposed in the literature, including: within-group AUC parity; cross-group AUC (xAUC) parity; gap-to-overall AUC; equity-scaled AUC; minimum-based metrics; $\mathrm{xAUC}^1$; $\mathrm{xAUC}^0$; and $\mathrm{xAUC}^1$ or $\mathrm{xAUC}^0$ parity. We characterise their estimands, relate them to the decomposition of overall AUC (into within- and cross-group components), and critically appraise them. We then illustrate their behaviour using simulations based on the EuroSCORE II, a clinical prediction model for in-hospital mortality. We recommend reporting an AUC matrix, containing the overall AUC and all within- and cross-group AUC components, alongside population characteristics. When fairness metrics are needed, we recommend reporting the within-group AUC parity, with cross-group AUC parity providing supplementary information but requiring caution due to its potential conflict with calibration. Metrics involving $\mathrm{xAUC}^1$ and $\mathrm{xAUC}^0$ have merit, summarising within- and cross-group AUCs into single values, but their interpretation is non-trivial, and they should be used with caution. Gap-to-overall AUC, equity-scaled AUC, and minimum-based metrics compare quantities that should not be compared and it is unclear how to operationalise them, making them not fit for purpose and generally not recommended.