ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2025
An investigation into the causes of race bias in artificial intelligence-based cine cardiac magnetic resonance segmentation.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual representation bias in artificial intelligence-generated depictions of anesthesia, pain, and intensive care professionals.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Echo Chambers: Bias and Representation in Cardiac Imaging Datasets for Artificial Intelligence.Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
- Promises and challenges of AI-enabled methods for myocardial characterisation in cardiovascular magnetic resonance.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- An investigation of race bias in deep learning-based segmentation of prostate MRI images.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Smart Healthcare at Home: A Review of AI-Enabled Wearables and Diagnostics Through the Lens of the Pi-CON Methodology.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- AI-driven preclinical disease risk assessment using imaging in UK biobank.NPJ digital 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Artificial intelligence (AI) methods are being used increasingly for the automated segmentation of cine cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. However, these methods have been shown to be subject to race bias; i.e. they exhibit different levels of performance for different races depending on the (im)balance of the data used to train the AI model. In this paper, we investigate the source of this bias, seeking to understand its root cause(s). Methods and results: We trained AI models to perform race classification on cine CMR images and/or segmentations from White and Black subjects from the UK Biobank and found that the classification accuracy for images was higher than for segmentations. Interpretability methods showed that the models were primarily looking at non-heart regions. Cropping images tightly around the heart caused classification accuracy to drop to almost chance level. Visualizing the latent space of AI segmentation models showed that race information was encoded in the models. Training segmentation models using cropped images reduced but did not eliminate the bias. A number of possible confounders for the bias in segmentation model performance were identified for Black subjects but none for White subjects. Conclusion: Distributional differences between annotated CMR data of White and Black races, which can lead to bias in trained AI segmentation models, are predominantly image-based, not segmentation-based. Most of the differences occur in areas outside the heart, such as subcutaneous fat. These findings will be important for researchers investigating performance of AI models on different races.
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.