ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2025
Racial and ethnic disparities in aortic stenosis within a universal healthcare system characterized by natural language processing for targeted intervention.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal phenotyping of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction identifies early- and end-stage disease states.Open heart · 2026Article
- Racial trends in outcomes and access to treatment for mitral regurgitation: a South London population cohort study.Open heart · 2026Observational
- Artificial Intelligence for Cardiovascular Care in Action: From Learning to Implementation in Health Systems.JACC. Advances · 2025Review
- Transforming Population Health Screening for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease with AI-Enhanced ECG Analytics: Opportunities and Challenges.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2025Review
- Concurrent aortic stenosis and hypertension: mortality trends in US older adults from 1999-2020.Future cardiology · 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
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Aortic stenosis (AS) is a condition marked by high morbidity and mortality in severe, symptomatic cases without intervention via transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Racial and ethnic disparities in access to these treatments have been documented, particularly in North America, where socioeconomic factors such as health insurance confound analyses. This study evaluates disparities in AS management across racial and ethnic groups, accounting for socioeconomic deprivation, using an artificial intelligence (AI) framework. Methods and results: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a natural language processing pipeline to analyse both structured and unstructured data from > 1 million patients at a London hospital. Key variables included age, sex, self-reported race and ethnicity, AS severity, and socioeconomic status. The primary outcomes were rates of valvular intervention and all-cause mortality. Among 6967 patients with AS, Black patients were younger, more symptomatic, and more comorbid than White patients. Black patients with objective evidence of AS on echocardiography were less likely to receive a clinical diagnosis than White patients. In severe AS, TAVI and SAVR procedures were performed at lower rates among Black patients than among White patients, with a longer time to SAVR. In multivariate analysis of severe AS, controlling for socioeconomic status, Black patients experienced higher mortality (hazard ratio = 1.42, 95% confidence interval = 1.05-1.92, Conclusion: An AI framework characterizes racial and ethnic disparities in AS management, which persist in a universal healthcare system, highlighting targets for future healthcare interventions.
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.