ReviewBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
Trustworthy and ethical AI-enabled cardiovascular care: a rapid review.
Review in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Stakeholder experience with artificial intelligence in healthcare: a bibliometric study of satisfaction, trust, acceptance, and patient engagement.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in the Heart of Medicine: A Systematic Approach to Transforming Arrhythmia Care with Intelligent Systems.Current cardiology reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Patients' Perspectives on Applications of AI and Personalized Medicine in Life-Threatening Heart Disease: European Cross-Sectional Patient Questionnaire Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Deep Learning and Cardiovascular Diseases: An Updated Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Practice Among Chinese Physicians: Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey Using Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and Explainable Machine Learning.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Implementation of Machine Learning in Heart Failure Trials.Current heart failure reports · 2026Review
- Ethical Responsibility in Medical AI: A Semi-Systematic Thematic Review and Multilevel Governance Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Coronary Plaque Characterization: Clinical Implications, Evidence Gaps, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Key Information Influencing Patient Decision-Making About AI in Health Care: Survey Experiment Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Exploring nurse- and allied health professional-led opportunistic atrial fibrillation screening with artificial intelligence-enabled devices in community and primary care.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Redefining cardiometabolic biomarkers in the big data era: toward a personalized medicine-centered reconstruction of risk prediction models.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Applying EASTL ethical constructs in AI-driven CRM: the mediating role of sustainable customer trust in enhancing customer retention in private sector banks.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- The Emerging Role of Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Care: From Imaging to Predictive Analytics.Heart views : the official journal of the Gulf Heart Association · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence and robotic technologies redefining precision and personalization in orthopedic surgery: a narrative review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- An Investigation Into the Comprehension, Perceptions, Application, and Determinants Affecting the Utilization of Deepseek Artificial Intelligence by Healthcare Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Assessing the quality of reporting in artificial intelligence/machine learning research for cardiac amyloidosis.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Structural equation modeling for influencing factors on behavioral intention to adopt medical AI among Chinese nurses: a nationwide cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Comparison of artificial intelligence-enhanced electrocardiography approaches for the prediction of time to mortality using electrocardiogram images: reply.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- A narrative review on ethical considerations and challenges in AI-driven cardiology.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Orthopedic Surgery: Current Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions.MedComm · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used for prevention, diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Despite the potential for AI to improve care, ethical concerns and mistrust in AI-enabled healthcare exist among the public and medical community. Given the rapid and transformative recent growth of AI in cardiovascular care, to inform practice guidelines and regulatory policies that facilitate ethical and trustworthy use of AI in medicine, we conducted a literature review to identify key ethical and trust barriers and facilitators from patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives when using AI in cardiovascular care.
methodsIn this rapid literature review, we searched six bibliographic databases to identify publications discussing transparency, trust, or ethical concerns (outcomes of interest) associated with AI-based medical devices (interventions of interest) in the context of cardiovascular care from patients', caregivers', or healthcare providers' perspectives. The search was completed on May 24, 2022 and was not limited by date or study design.
resultsAfter reviewing 7,925 papers from six databases and 3,603 papers identified through citation chasing, 145 articles were included. Key ethical concerns included privacy, security, or confidentiality issues (n = 59, 40.7%); risk of healthcare inequity or disparity (n = 36, 24.8%); risk of patient harm (n = 24, 16.6%); accountability and responsibility concerns (n = 19, 13.1%); problematic informed consent and potential loss of patient autonomy (n = 17, 11.7%); and issues related to data ownership (n = 11, 7.6%). Major trust barriers included data privacy and security concerns, potential risk of patient harm, perceived lack of transparency about AI-enabled medical devices, concerns about AI replacing human aspects of care, concerns about prioritizing profits over patients' interests, and lack of robust evidence related to the accuracy and limitations of AI-based medical devices. Ethical and trust facilitators included ensuring data privacy and data validation, conducting clinical trials in diverse cohorts, providing appropriate training and resources to patients and healthcare providers and improving their engagement in different phases of AI implementation, and establishing further regulatory oversights.
conclusionThis review revealed key ethical concerns and barriers and facilitators of trust in AI-enabled medical devices from patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives. Successful integration of AI into cardiovascular care necessitates implementation of mitigation strategies. These strategies should focus on enhanced regulatory oversight on the use of patient data and promoting transparency around the use of AI in patient care.
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.