ArticleBMJ open2023
Social bias in artificial intelligence algorithms designed to improve cardiovascular risk assessment relative to the Framingham Risk Score: a protocol for a systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Future promise, current clinical ambiguity: a systematic review of machine learning algorithm outputs predicting risk of cardiovascular disease.Open heart · 2026Pooled it
- Understanding and Addressing Bias in Artificial Intelligence Systems: A Primer for the Emergency Medicine Physician.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026Article
- Emerging rapid detection methods for the monitoring of cardiovascular diseases: Current trends and future perspectives.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention relies on timely identification of and intervention for individuals at risk. Risk assessment models such as the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) have been shown to over-estimate or under-estimate risk in certain groups, such as socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) could be used to address such equity gaps to improve risk assessment; however, critical appraisal is warranted before ML-informed clinical decision-making is implemented. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will employ an equity-lens to identify sources of bias (ie, race/ethnicity, gender and social stratum) in ML algorithms designed to improve CVD risk assessment relative to the FRS. A comprehensive literature search will be completed using MEDLINE, Embase and IEEE to answer the research question: do AI algorithms that are designed for the estimation of CVD risk and that compare performance with the FRS address the sources of bias inherent in the FRS? No study date filters will be imposed on the search, but English language filters will be applied. Studies describing a specific algorithm or ML approach that provided a risk assessment output for coronary artery disease, heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias (ie, atrial fibrillation), stroke or a global CVD risk score, and that compared performance with the FRS are eligible for inclusion. Papers describing algorithms for the diagnosis rather than the prevention of CVD will be excluded. A structured narrative review analysis of included studies will be completed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not required. Ethics exemption was formally received from the General Research Ethics Board at Queen's University. The completed systematic review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and parts of the work will be presented at relevant conferences.
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.