EXHEART: A Fairness-Aware Explainable Stacked Ensemble for Cardiovascular Disease Classification with Cross-Instrument Disparity Attribution
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
Machine learning models trained on population health surveys offer scalable tools for cardiovascular screening, but recurring methodological weaknesses undermine their credibility and equity: data leakage from synthetic oversampling, qualitative rather than quantitative explainability evaluation, and the absence of demographic fairness auditing at the clinical operating threshold.
Methods
We present EXHEART, a leakage-free stacked ensemble pipeline trained on BRFSS 2015 (n = 253,680) and validated on BRFSS 2020 (n = 319,795; temporal transport and retrain) and a clinical cardiovascular examination dataset (n = 68,730). The pipeline combines XGBoost, LightGBM, Random Forest, and a multi-layer perceptron as base learners with 5-fold out-of-fold logistic regression stacking and Platt scaling calibration. A quantitative SHAP–LIME consistency framework, based on Kendall-τ rank correlation and Jaccard overlap, accompanies a decision-curve analysis, a subgroup-stratified SHAP interaction analysis, and an intersectional fairness audit (Sex × Age × Income) with threshold-shifting mitigation and a frontier of the fairness–utility trade-off. The framework also adds cross-instrument fairness-disparity attribution, an empirical diagnostic that provides evidence on whether an observed subgroup disparity is more consistent with a measurement-induced or a substantive explanation by re-validating it on a dataset that measures the same clinical construct objectively. On heart disease, this diagnostic associates 89% of the sex TPR gap (95% CI [0.65, 0.99]) with the self-reported survey outcome rather than with a substantive risk difference.
Results
On BRFSS 2015, EXHEART achieves AUC-ROC = 0.850, AUPRC = 0.371, Brier score = 0.071, and reduces ECE by 96% (0.256 → 0.011) via Platt scaling. Global SHAP–LIME rank agreement is moderate-to-strong (Kendall-τ = 0.580, Spearman-ρ = 0.818) with a substantial top-3 divergence (Jaccard@3 = 0.200), where Stroke flips from SHAP rank 8 to LIME rank 1. The Sex TPR gap is 0.124 at the screening threshold; intersectional Sex × Age disparities reach 0.649 among adequately-powered cells, 5.2× the single-attribute gap. Temporal transport to BRFSS 2020 collapses sensitivity from 0.776 to 0.267, while retraining restores AUC = 0.840 and ECE = 0.012. On clinical examination data, the Sex TPR gap collapses to 0.014; the attribution test indicates this gap is instrument-dependent, consistent with a measurement or outcome-definition explanation rather than a substantive risk difference. Cross-domain SHAP analysis identifies four instrument-independent CVD risk factors and two major portability failures.
Conclusions
EXHEART combines three practices that population-scale cardiovascular classifiers usually apply in isolation: leakage-free training with calibrated probabilities, a test of whether the model’s explanations are stable, and a fairness audit that examines intersecting subgroups rather than single attributes. Bringing them together proved worthwhile. The intersectional audit revealed disparities that single-attribute auditing missed, and the cross-instrument comparison indicated that much of the sex gap reflects how the outcome is measured in survey data rather than a substantive difference in risk. The temporal transport findings indicate that deployed BRFSS models warrant periodic monitoring and retraining to maintain clinical utility. EXHEART is a retrospective methodological evaluation on public de-identified data; it is not validated for direct clinical decision-making, diagnosis, or treatment recommendation without prospective clinical validation.
