Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39232725›Full record

ReviewBMC medical informatics and decision making2024

Trustworthy and ethical AI-enabled cardiovascular care: a rapid review.

Maryam Mooghali, Austin M Stroud, Dong Whi Yoo, Barbara A Barry, Alyssa A Grimshaw, Joseph S Ross, Xuan Zhu, Jennifer E Miller

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The Emerging Role of Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Care: From Imaging to Predictive Analytics.Heart views : the official journal of the Gulf Heart Association · 2026
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Maryam MooghaliSection of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. maryam.mooghali@yale.edu.
Austin M StroudBiomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Dong Whi YooSchool of Information, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA.
Barbara A BarryRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Alyssa A GrimshawHarvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Joseph S RossSection of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Xuan ZhuRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jennifer E MillerSection of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.

Funding

FDA HHS U01 FD005938
6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceCardiovascular DiseasesTrustHumansArtificial intelligenceEthicsMachine learningMedical devicesTransparencyTrust

Identifiers

PMID39232725
PMCPMC11373417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.