ReviewCurrent atherosclerosis reports2024
Implications of Bias in Artificial Intelligence: Considerations for Cardiovascular Imaging.
Review in Current atherosclerosis reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- AI-generated videos in medical education: systematic review.BMJ open quality · 2025Pooled it
- Smart Technology, Fragile Hearts: Navigating AI's Challenges and Limitations in Heart Failure Management.Current heart failure reports · 2026Review
- A narrative review on artificial intelligence in neurosurgery: ethical challenges and implementation considerations.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Risk stratification of chest pain in the emergency department using artificial intelligence applied to electrocardiograms.Open heart · 2025Article
- Bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging: fundamentals, detection, avoidance, mitigation, challenges, ethics, and prospects.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Review
- Evolution of Research on Artificial Intelligence for Heart Failure: A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewBias in artificial intelligence (AI) models can result in unintended consequences. In cardiovascular imaging, biased AI models used in clinical practice can negatively affect patient outcomes. Biased AI models result from decisions made when training and evaluating a model. This paper is a comprehensive guide for AI development teams to understand assumptions in datasets and chosen metrics for outcome/ground truth, and how this translates to real-world performance for cardiovascular disease (CVD). RECENT
findingsCVDs are the number one cause of mortality worldwide; however, the prevalence, burden, and outcomes of CVD vary across gender and race. Several biomarkers are also shown to vary among different populations and ethnic/racial groups. Inequalities in clinical trial inclusion, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment are preserved in health data that is ultimately used to train AI algorithms, leading to potential biases in model performance. Despite the notion that AI models themselves are biased, AI can also help to mitigate bias (e.g., bias auditing tools). In this review paper, we describe in detail implicit and explicit biases in the care of cardiovascular disease that may be present in existing datasets but are not obvious to model developers. We review disparities in CVD outcomes across different genders and race groups, differences in treatment of historically marginalized groups, and disparities in clinical trials for various cardiovascular diseases and outcomes. Thereafter, we summarize some CVD AI literature that shows bias in CVD AI as well as approaches that AI is being used to mitigate CVD bias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38363525What 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.