ArticleScientific reports2022
Prediction performance and fairness heterogeneity in cardiovascular risk models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Treatment Response in Patients With Anxiety Disorders After Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Inconsistent values and algorithmic fairness: a review of organ allocation priority systems in the United States.BMC medical ethics · 2024Pooled it
- Advancing health equity in proactive health management: from data underrepresentation and algorithmic bias to a closed-loop governance framework.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Lipoprotein(a) and High-Risk Coronary Plaques: Mechanisms, Characteristics, and Emerging Therapeutic Strategies.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Bottlenecks in advancing and applying multiomic data integration-common data resources as rate-limiting drivers-the high-impact use case of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- External Validation of a Risk Prediction Model for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Diseases in a Large National Health-Checkup and Claim Database.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Reporting of Fairness Metrics in Clinical Risk Prediction Models Used for Precision Health: Scoping Review.Online journal of public health informatics · 2025Review
- Tailored Strategies are Needed to Address Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Pancreatic Cancer Risk Prediction.Gastro hep advances · 2025Review
- Investigating the impact of steroid dependence on gastrointestinal surgical outcomes from UK Biobank.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Recommendations to promote fairness and inclusion in biomedical AI research and clinical use.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2024Article
- Exploring the link between Gilbert's syndrome and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: insights from a subpopulation-based analysis of over one million individuals.European heart journal open · 2023Article
- Step Count, Self-reported Physical Activity, and Predicted 5-Year Risk of Atrial Fibrillation: Cross-sectional Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Prediction models are commonly used to estimate risk for cardiovascular diseases, to inform diagnosis and management. However, performance may vary substantially across relevant subgroups of the population. Here we investigated heterogeneity of accuracy and fairness metrics across a variety of subgroups for risk prediction of two common diseases: atrial fibrillation (AF) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We calculated the Cohorts for Heart and Aging in Genomic Epidemiology Atrial Fibrillation (CHARGE-AF) score for AF and the Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) score for ASCVD in three large datasets: Explorys Life Sciences Dataset (Explorys, n = 21,809,334), Mass General Brigham (MGB, n = 520,868), and the UK Biobank (UKBB, n = 502,521). Our results demonstrate important performance heterogeneity across subpopulations defined by age, sex, and presence of preexisting disease, with fairly consistent patterns across both scores. For example, using CHARGE-AF, discrimination declined with increasing age, with a concordance index of 0.72 [95% CI 0.72-0.73] for the youngest (45-54 years) subgroup to 0.57 [0.56-0.58] for the oldest (85-90 years) subgroup in Explorys. Even though sex is not included in CHARGE-AF, the statistical parity difference (i.e., likelihood of being classified as high risk) was considerable between males and females within the 65-74 years subgroup with a value of - 0.33 [95% CI - 0.33 to - 0.33]. We also observed weak discrimination (i.e., < 0.7) and suboptimal calibration (i.e., calibration slope outside of 0.7-1.3) in large subsets of the population; for example, all individuals aged 75 years or older in Explorys (17.4%). Our findings highlight the need to characterize and quantify the behavior of clinical risk models within specific subpopulations so they can be used appropriately to facilitate more accurate, consistent, and equitable assessment of disease risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.