ReviewEthnicity & disease2023
Evaluating Social Determinants of Health Variables in Advanced Analytic and Artificial Intelligence Models for Cardiovascular Disease Risk and Outcomes: A Targeted Review.
Review in Ethnicity & disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in prehospital assessment of acute coronary syndrome: a scoping review.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Wealth, Unemployment, Social Investment, and Risk of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction-An Ecological Analysis of a Low-Cardiovascular-Risk European Region.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction/Purpose: Predictive models incorporating relevant clinical and social features can provide meaningful insights into complex interrelated mechanisms of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and progression and the influence of environmental exposures on adverse outcomes. The purpose of this targeted review (2018-2019) was to examine the extent to which present-day advanced analytics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning models include relevant variables to address potential biases that inform care, treatment, resource allocation, and management of patients with CVD. Methods: PubMed literature was searched using the prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify and critically evaluate primary studies published in English that reported on predictive models for CVD, associated risks, progression, and outcomes in the general adult population in North America. Studies were then assessed for inclusion of relevant social variables in the model construction. Two independent reviewers screened articles for eligibility. Primary and secondary independent reviewers extracted information from each full-text article for analysis. Disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer and iterative screening rounds to establish consensus. Cohen's kappa was used to determine interrater reliability. Results: The review yielded 533 unique records where 35 met the inclusion criteria. Studies used advanced statistical and machine learning methods to predict CVD risk (10, 29%), mortality (19, 54%), survival (7, 20%), complication (10, 29%), disease progression (6, 17%), functional outcomes (4, 11%), and disposition (2, 6%). Most studies incorporated age (34, 97%), sex (34, 97%), comorbid conditions (32, 91%), and behavioral risk factor (28, 80%) variables. Race or ethnicity (23, 66%) and social variables, such as education (3, 9%) were less frequently observed. Conclusions: Predictive models should adjust for race and social predictor variables, where relevant, to improve model accuracy and to inform more equitable interventions and decision making.
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.