blog-cover-image

Data Science Interview Question - Healthcare

Data science is transforming healthcare, enabling hospitals to deliver proactive, personalized care. However, building predictive models in this sensitive domain comes with unique challenges—especially around fairness, transparency, and operational integration. In this article, we will dissect a common real-world data science interview question that encapsulates these challenges: developing a readmission risk model for diabetic patients, with explicit requirements for fairness, interpretability, and robust monitoring. We'll walk you through the solution step by step, explaining every involved concept, metric, and technique with clarity and practical examples.

Data Science Interview Question: Building a Fair and Interpretable Readmission Risk Model in Healthcare

Scenario Overview

A large hospital network wants to predict the 30-day readmission risk for diabetic patients so they can prioritize follow-up care. However, several stakeholders raise key concerns:

Compliance worries about fairness—specifically, that the model should not disproportionately disadvantage patients by race or socioeconomic status.
Clinicians need interpretable predictions to guide care.
Operations wants a concrete playbook to monitor model drift and detect subgroup disparities post-deployment.

Let's break down how to approach this scenario, addressing each challenge with best practices and practical tools.

1. Building a Bias-Aware Modeling Pipeline

Defining the Problem: Outcome, Cohorts, and Sensitive Attributes

Before any modeling, precisely define what you're predicting, who is included, and what "fairness" means in context.

Outcome: The target variable is 30-day readmission (binary: 1 if the patient is readmitted within 30 days, 0 otherwise).
Cohort: Restrict to diabetic patients discharged from the hospital within a specified time frame.
Sensitive Attributes: At minimum, include race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) (e.g., insurance type, area deprivation index, or income bracket).

Fairness Metrics: How Do We Measure Parity?

To ensure the model treats groups equitably, compare performance and error rates across subgroups. The most common methods:

AUROC by Group: The Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) measures overall discriminative ability. Compute AUROC for each subgroup (e.g., for each race/ethnicity and SES level).
Recall (Sensitivity) by Group: Proportion of actual readmissions correctly flagged. Calculate separately for each subgroup.
False Negative Rate (FNR) and False Positive Rate (FPR) Gaps:
- FNR = \(\frac{\text{False Negatives}}{\text{Total Actual Positives}}\)
- FPR = \(\frac{\text{False Positives}}{\text{Total Actual Negatives}}\)
- Gap = Absolute difference between subgroups
Calibration by Group: For each group, does the predicted risk match observed outcomes? For example, among patients predicted at 40% risk, does ~40% actually get readmitted in each group?

Why are these metrics important? If the model is less accurate or underestimates risk for certain groups, those patients may miss out on needed care interventions, perpetuating disparities.

Implementation Example: Grouped Metrics in Python


import pandas as pd
from sklearn.metrics import roc_auc_score, recall_score

def group_metrics(df, y_true, y_pred, group_col):
    results = []
    for group in df[group_col].unique():
        idx = df[group_col] == group
        auc = roc_auc_score(df.loc[idx, y_true], df.loc[idx, y_pred])
        recall = recall_score(df.loc[idx, y_true], df.loc[idx, y_pred] > 0.5)
        results.append({'group': group, 'auroc': auc, 'recall': recall})
    return pd.DataFrame(results)

# Example usage:
metrics_by_race = group_metrics(df, 'readmit', 'pred_prob', 'race')

2. Bias Evaluation Checklist and Model Selection

Bias Evaluation Checklist

A bias evaluation checklist helps systematically surface risks at every modeling stage:

Data Collection: Are key groups underrepresented? Are features correlated with sensitive attributes (e.g., zip code proxies for race)?
Label Quality: Are readmissions accurately recorded? Could there be systematic underreporting for some groups?
Deployment Context: Will the model be used differently for certain patients or locations?

Bias Mitigation Techniques

If disparities are detected, several approaches can help mitigate them:

Reweighting: Give higher weights to underrepresented or disadvantaged groups during training. This can be implemented via sample weights in most frameworks.
Threshold-Per-Group: Use different risk score cutoffs for each group to achieve parity in FNR or recall.
Post-processing Calibration: Adjust predicted probabilities post-hoc for each group to align predicted and observed risks.

Documenting Tradeoffs

Every mitigation has tradeoffs—improving recall for one group may increase FPR, for example. Always document:

What disparities are present?
Which mitigation(s) were chosen?
What new tradeoffs or risks are introduced?

Model Choice: Prioritize Transparency

Clinicians require models they can explain and trust. Start with simple, interpretable models:

Regularized Logistic Regression: Linear, with coefficients directly interpretable as log-odds ratios. Apply L1/L2 regularization to prevent overfitting.
Generalized Additive Models (GAM): Allow non-linear relationships while maintaining transparency.

Compare these to more complex models (e.g., tree ensembles like Random Forests or XGBoost), but default to simpler models unless substantial gains are seen.

Keeping Explanations: Patient and Global Level

Provide two types of explanations:

Per-patient risk factors: For each prediction, show the main features driving the risk score. (e.g., "Prior ER visits, high A1C, Medicaid coverage")
Global feature effects: Overall, which features most influence risk? Present as a chart of model coefficients or feature importances.


from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
import numpy as np

# Fit model
model = LogisticRegression(penalty='l2')
model.fit(X_train, y_train)

# Get feature effects
feature_effects = pd.DataFrame({
    'feature': X_train.columns,
    'coef': model.coef_[0]
}).sort_values('coef', ascending=False)

3. Monitoring Model Performance and Equity Post-Deployment

After deployment, ongoing monitoring is crucial. The model environment can change, leading to performance drift or worsening subgroup disparities.

Feature Drift: Are input variable distributions changing over time? For example, a new care protocol might affect patient length-of-stay.
Subgroup Calibration: Are predicted risks still accurate for all groups? Monitor calibration plots per group.
Subgroup Performance: Track AUROC, recall, FNR/FPR by group monthly/quarterly.
Intervention Constraints: Is the care management queue being overwhelmed? Ensure flagged patients can realistically be managed.
Outcome Delays: Allow for sufficient follow-up time before measuring outcomes (e.g., can't compute 30-day readmissions until 30 days have passed since discharge).

Example: Monitoring with Python


import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.calibration import calibration_curve

def group_calibration_plot(df, y_true, y_pred, group_col):
    for group in df[group_col].unique():
        true, pred = df.loc[df[group_col] == group, y_true], df.loc[df[group_col] == group, y_pred]
        prob_true, prob_pred = calibration_curve(true, pred, n_bins=10)
        plt.plot(prob_pred, prob_true, label=f'{group}')
    plt.plot([0,1],[0,1],'--',color='gray')
    plt.xlabel('Predicted risk')
    plt.ylabel('Observed risk')
    plt.legend()
    plt.title('Calibration by Group')
    plt.show()

4. Establishing Model Governance and Actionability

Model Cards and Governance

A model card is a standardized documentation template for ML models, summarizing their intended use, limitations, and key performance/fairness metrics.

Audit Logs: Track model predictions, interventions, and updates for compliance and accountability.
Periodic Revalidation: Schedule regular reviews of model performance and disparity metrics.
Rollback Plan: If disparities exceed agreed-upon limits, be ready to revert to a previous model or take the system offline.

Tying Predictions to Action

A model is only valuable if its predictions drive meaningful, measurable actions:

Care Management Queue: Ensure only a manageable number of high-risk patients are flagged for follow-up. Set thresholds based on operational capacity.
Measure Impact: Don’t just track AUROC—measure whether flagged patients actually have better outcomes (e.g., reduced readmissions, improved follow-up rates).

Detailed Explanations of Key Concepts

1. AUROC (Area Under the ROC Curve)

AUROC is a widely used metric for binary classification models. The ROC curve plots the True Positive Rate (TPR) against the False Positive Rate (FPR) at various threshold settings. AUROC quantifies the probability that a randomly chosen positive instance is scored higher than a randomly chosen negative one.

\[ \text{AUROC} = \int_{0}^{1} \text{TPR}(FPR) \, dFPR \]

2. Calibration

A model is well-calibrated if, among all patients given a predicted risk of x%, approximately x% actually experience the event. Calibration is critical in healthcare, where risk scores may be used to make threshold-based decisions.

\[ \text{Calibration Error} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} | \hat{p}_i - y_i | \]

3. Model Interpretability

Interpretability is the extent to which humans can understand and trust a model's predictions. Key methods:

Feature Coefficients: In linear models, coefficients show the effect of each variable on the outcome.
SHAP/LIME: For complex models, use SHAP or LIME to generate local (per-patient) explanations.
Partial Dependence Plots: Visualize how risk changes with individual features.

4. Performance Drift

Model performance can degrade over time due to changes in population, care protocols, or data quality—a phenomenon known as drift. Proactive monitoring is essential.

Covariate Drift: Shift in feature distributions.
Concept Drift: Change in the relationship between features and outcome.

5. Fairness Definitions and Tradeoffs

There are multiple, sometimes incompatible, definitions of fairness:

Equal Opportunity: Equal recall (true positive rate) across groups.
Predictive Parity: Equal positive predictive value (precision) across groups.
Calibration Equality: Predicted risk matches observed risk for each group.

In practice, not all can be satisfied simultaneously. Choose the metric that best aligns with your institution's values and operational needs.

End-to-End Example:

End-to-End Example: 30-Day Readmission Risk Model for Diabetic Patients

Let's walk through a concrete, step-by-step application of the above concepts to the scenario—a hospital network wants a fair, interpretable, and actionable 30-day readmission risk model for diabetic patients.

Step 1: Data Preparation and Exploration

Cohort Selection: Extract all adult diabetic patients discharged in the last 3 years.
Feature Engineering: Include demographics (age, sex, race/ethnicity), clinical features (A1C, comorbidity index, prior admissions), insurance type (proxy for SES), and recent care utilization.
Label Definition: Binary variable for 30-day readmission (1=yes, 0=no).


# Example: Feature extraction
import pandas as pd

features = ['age', 'sex', 'race', 'insurance', 'A1C', 'comorbidity_index', 'prior_admits']
df = pd.read_csv('diabetes_patients.csv')
X = df[features]
y = df['readmit_30d']

Step 2: Baseline Model Training and Evaluation

Model Selection: Start with regularized logistic regression for transparency.
Cross-Validation: Use stratified k-fold to account for imbalanced outcomes.
Group-wise Evaluation: Calculate AUROC, recall, FNR/FPR, and calibration for each group (race, insurance type).


from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegressionCV
from sklearn.model_selection import StratifiedKFold

clf = LogisticRegressionCV(cv=StratifiedKFold(5), class_weight='balanced', max_iter=1000)
clf.fit(X, y)
df['pred_prob'] = clf.predict_proba(X)[:,1]

Suppose you find the model's recall is 0.72 for White patients but only 0.61 for Black patients—this is a significant fairness gap that must be addressed.

Step 3: Bias Evaluation and Mitigation

Checklist: Review representation in training data, label quality, and feature correlations with sensitive attributes.
Mitigation: Apply a reweighting scheme to upweight underrepresented groups, or consider adjusting the decision threshold per group to equalize recall.
Documentation: Record the initial disparity, chosen mitigation, and expected tradeoffs.


# Example: Apply sample weights
group_weights = df['race'].value_counts(normalize=True).to_dict()
sample_weights = df['race'].map(lambda r: 1.0 / group_weights[r])
clf.fit(X, y, sample_weight=sample_weights)

Re-evaluate group metrics—if recall gaps are reduced and overall AUROC is only marginally affected, this is a good balance.

Step 4: Interpretability and Explanation

Feature Coefficients: Present clinicians with a chart of feature coefficients, indicating which clinical or demographic variables most strongly influence risk.
Patient-level Explanations: For a flagged patient, provide a summary like: “High risk due to prior readmissions, high A1C, and Medicaid insurance.”


def explain_patient(model, patient):
    explanation = {}
    for i, feature in enumerate(model.feature_names_in_):
        explanation[feature] = model.coef_[0][i] * patient[feature]
    return sorted(explanation.items(), key=lambda x: abs(x[1]), reverse=True)

Step 5: Deployment Playbook and Monitoring

Threshold Setting: Set a risk threshold so the number of flagged patients matches care management capacity.
Monitor Drift: Set up dashboards to track feature distribution, calibration, and performance metrics by group monthly.
Audit Logs: Record every prediction, intervention, and outcome for transparency.
Periodic Review: Schedule quarterly fairness and performance reviews with stakeholders.
Rollback Plan: If disparities exceed a pre-set threshold (e.g., FNR gap > 0.10), trigger a review and possible model rollback.

Step 6: Measuring Impact

Outcome Tracking: Compare 30-day readmission rates for flagged vs. unflagged patients, and for each subgroup.
Process Metrics: Track how many flagged patients actually received follow-up interventions, and any bottlenecks in care management.

Best Practices and Common Pitfalls

Involve Stakeholders Early: Engage clinicians, compliance, operations, and patient advocates from the start to understand their needs and define fairness.
Validate Data Quality: Check for missing or inconsistent data, especially for sensitive attributes. Data leakage or bad proxies (like zip code for race) can invalidate fairness assessments.
Balance Simplicity and Performance: More complex models may increase AUROC, but at the cost of interpretability and trust.
Set Realistic Expectations: No model is perfect—set thresholds for acceptable performance and fairness gaps, and revisit them as context changes.
Continuous Learning: Healthcare populations and protocols evolve—plan for periodic retraining and revalidation.

Common Mistakes

Ignoring Subgroup Metrics: Only reporting overall AUROC can hide substantial disparities.
Deploying Without Monitoring: Models can drift or become biased over time if not monitored.
Overfitting to Training Data: Especially problematic with imbalanced outcomes or small minority groups.
One-size-fits-all Mitigations: Threshold-per-group or reweighting might help with fairness, but can reduce overall accuracy or create new disparities if not carefully evaluated.

Frequently Asked Interview Questions (and Answers)

Q1: How would you handle missing sensitive attribute values?

Answer: First, assess if missingness is random or systematic (e.g., certain groups less likely to disclose race). Consider imputation if appropriate, or treat “missing” as its own category. Always report the percentage of missing data and its impact on fairness metrics.

Q2: What if the model shows a persistent disparity despite mitigation?

Answer: Document the gap, discuss with stakeholders, and consider more advanced mitigations (e.g., adversarial debiasing, collecting better features). Sometimes, structural inequities in the underlying data may limit achievable parity—transparency and governance are crucial.

Q3: Why prefer logistic regression or GAMs over more accurate tree ensembles?

Answer: In high-stakes domains like healthcare, interpretability is critical for trust, regulatory compliance, and clinical adoption. Use more complex models only if they offer substantial, validated improvements and their decisions can be explained.

Q4: How do you decide which fairness metric to optimize?

Answer: It depends on the use case. For care prioritization, equalizing recall (true positive rate) may be most important to avoid missing high-risk patients in any group. Always align with stakeholder values and document your rationale.

Conclusion: Key Takeaways

Define the problem and fairness criteria up front.
Use group-wise metrics and a bias checklist to systematically identify and mitigate disparities.
Prioritize interpretable models and actionable explanations to build trust and support clinical decisions.
Monitor both performance and fairness post-deployment—drift and disparities can emerge over time.
Establish strong governance, documentation, and rollback plans.
Always tie predictions to measurable impact, not just predictive accuracy.

By following this comprehensive approach, you can design, deploy, and maintain data science models in healthcare that are not only accurate but also fair, transparent, and aligned with both ethical standards and real-world clinical workflows. These are the skills and mindsets top employers look for in healthcare data science interviews.

Sample Data Science Interview Problem Recap

Scenario: Build a 30-day readmission risk model for diabetic patients.
Challenges: Fairness (race, SES), interpretability, drift monitoring, operational integration.
Solution Approach:

Define cohorts, outcomes, and sensitive attributes
Use group-wise metrics (AUROC, recall, FNR/FPR, calibration)
Apply bias evaluation checklist and mitigations
Favor transparent models, with per-patient explanations
Monitor drift, calibration, and disparities post-deployment
Implement governance, model cards, audits, and rollback plans
Ensure predictions lead to actionable, measurable interventions

With this structured approach, you’ll be well-equipped to address advanced data science interview questions in healthcare—and to make a genuine impact in real-world patient care.