Researcher profile

Noémie Elhadad

Noémie Elhadad contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

A pipeline for enabling path-specific causal fairness in observational health data

When training machine learning (ML) models for potential deployment in a healthcare setting, it is essential to ensure that they do not replicate or exacerbate existing healthcare biases. Although many definitions of fairness exist, we focus on path-specific causal fairness, which allows us to better consider the social and medical contexts in which biases occur (e.g., direct discrimination by a clinician or model versus bias due to differential access to the healthcare system) and to characterize how these biases may appear in learned models. In this work, we map the structural fairness model to the observational healthcare setting and create a generalizable pipeline for training causally fair models. The pipeline explicitly considers specific healthcare context and disparities to define a target "fair" model. Our work fills two major gaps: first, we expand on characterizations of the "fairness-accuracy" tradeoff by detangling direct and indirect sources of bias and jointly presenting these fairness considerations alongside considerations of accuracy in the context of broadly known biases. Second, we demonstrate how a foundation model trained without fairness constraints on observational health data can be leveraged to generate causally fair downstream predictions in tasks with known social and medical disparities. This work presents a model-agnostic pipeline for training causally fair machine learning models that address both direct and indirect forms of healthcare bias.

preprint2026arXiv

AcuityBench: Evaluating Clinical Acuity Identification and Uncertainty Alignment

We introduce AcuityBench, a benchmark for evaluating whether language models identify the appropriate urgency of care from user medical presentations. Existing health benchmarks emphasize medical question answering, broad health interactions, or narrow workflow-specific triage tasks, but they do not offer a unified evaluation of acuity identification across these settings. AcuityBench addresses this gap by harmonizing five public datasets spanning user conversations, online forum posts, clinical vignettes, and patient portal messages under a shared four-level acuity framework ranging from home monitoring to immediate emergency care. The benchmark contains 914 cases, including 697 consensus cases for standard accuracy evaluation and 217 physician-confirmed ambiguous cases for uncertainty-aware evaluation. It supports two complementary task formats: explicit four-way classification in a QA setting, and free-form conversational responses evaluated with a rubric-based judge anchored to the same framework. Across 12 frontier proprietary and open-weight models, we find substantial variation in clear-case acuity accuracy and error direction. Comparing task formats reveals a systematic tradeoff: conversational responses reduce over-triage but increase under-triage relative to QA, especially in higher-acuity cases. In ambiguous cases, no model closely matches the distribution of physician judgments, and model predictions are more concentrated than expert clinical uncertainty. We also compare expert and model adjudication on a subset of maximally ambiguous cases, using those cases to examine the role of clinical uncertainty in label disagreement. Together, these results position acuity identification as a distinct safety-critical capability and show that AcuityBench enables systematic comparison and stress-testing of how well models guide users to the right level of care in real-world health use.

preprint2022arXiv

Assessing Phenotype Definitions for Algorithmic Fairness

Disease identification is a core, routine activity in observational health research. Cohorts impact downstream analyses, such as how a condition is characterized, how patient risk is defined, and what treatments are studied. It is thus critical to ensure that selected cohorts are representative of all patients, independently of their demographics or social determinants of health. While there are multiple potential sources of bias when constructing phenotype definitions which may affect their fairness, it is not standard in the field of phenotyping to consider the impact of different definitions across subgroups of patients. In this paper, we propose a set of best practices to assess the fairness of phenotype definitions. We leverage established fairness metrics commonly used in predictive models and relate them to commonly used epidemiological cohort description metrics. We describe an empirical study for Crohn's disease and diabetes type 2, each with multiple phenotype definitions taken from the literature across two sets of patient subgroups (gender and race). We show that the different phenotype definitions exhibit widely varying and disparate performance according to the different fairness metrics and subgroups. We hope that the proposed best practices can help in constructing fair and inclusive phenotype definitions.

preprint2020arXiv

Characterizing physiological and symptomatic variation in menstrual cycles using self-tracked mobile health data

The menstrual cycle is a key indicator of overall health for women of reproductive age. Previously, menstruation was primarily studied through survey results; however, as menstrual tracking mobile apps become more widely adopted, they provide an increasingly large, content-rich source of menstrual health experiences and behaviors over time. By exploring a database of user-tracked observations from the Clue app by BioWink of over 378,000 users and 4.9 million natural cycles, we show that self-reported menstrual tracker data can reveal statistically significant relationships between per-person cycle length variability and self-reported qualitative symptoms. A concern for self-tracked data is that they reflect not only physiological behaviors, but also the engagement dynamics of app users. To mitigate such potential artifacts, we develop a procedure to exclude cycles lacking user engagement, thereby allowing us to better distinguish true menstrual patterns from tracking anomalies. We uncover that women located at different ends of the menstrual variability spectrum, based on the consistency of their cycle length statistics, exhibit statistically significant differences in their cycle characteristics and symptom tracking patterns. We also find that cycle and period length statistics are stationary over the app usage timeline across the variability spectrum. The symptoms that we identify as showing statistically significant association with timing data can be useful to clinicians and users for predicting cycle variability from symptoms or as potential health indicators for conditions like endometriosis. Our findings showcase the potential of longitudinal, high-resolution self-tracked data to improve understanding of menstruation and women's health as a whole.

preprint2020arXiv

Towards Patient Record Summarization Through Joint Phenotype Learning in HIV Patients

Identifying a patient's key problems over time is a common task for providers at the point care, yet a complex and time-consuming activity given current electric health records. To enable a problem-oriented summarizer to identify a patient's comprehensive list of problems and their salience, we propose an unsupervised phenotyping approach that jointly learns a large number of phenotypes/problems across structured and unstructured data. To identify the appropriate granularity of the learned phenotypes, the model is trained on a target patient population of the same clinic. To enable the content organization of a problem-oriented summarizer, the model identifies phenotype relatedness as well. The model leverages a correlated-mixed membership approach with variational inference applied to heterogenous clinical data. In this paper, we focus our experiments on assessing the learned phenotypes and their relatedness as learned from a specific patient population. We ground our experiments in phenotyping patients from an HIV clinic in a large urban care institution (n=7,523), where patients have voluminous, longitudinal documentation, and where providers would benefit from summaries of these patient's medical histories, whether about their HIV or any comorbidities. We find that the learned phenotypes and their relatedness are clinically valid when assessed qualitatively by clinical experts, and that the model surpasses baseline in inferring phenotype-relatedness when comparing to existing expert-curated condition groupings.