ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
A narrative review on ethical considerations and challenges in AI-driven cardiology.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 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.
- AI-Driven Atrial Fibrillation Management: From Signal to Strategy.Balkan medical journal · 2026Review
- A framework for developing successful academic-industry partnerships for cardiovascular innovations.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Review
- AI-Enabled Sensor Technologies for Remote Arrhythmic Monitoring in High-Risk Cardiomyopathy Genotypes.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- 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
- Cognitive alignment in cardiovascular AI: designing predictive models that think with, not just for, clinicians.Frontiers in cardiovascular 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: Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing cardiology by enhancing diagnostic precision, prognostic accuracy, and treatment planning. Its integration raises ethical concerns like bias, privacy, accountability, and the risk of dehumanizing healthcare. This review focuses on navigating these challenges while maximizing AI's potential in patient care. Methodology and aims: A narrative review was conducted to explore the ethical challenges associated with AI in cardiology. Key areas of focus included bias in training datasets, data privacy, the "black-box" nature of AI systems, and the need for transparency and accountability in clinical decision-making. Results and critical insights: AI improves accuracy in diagnosing and managing cardiovascular conditions but presents risks such as exacerbating healthcare disparities and challenges in patient data security. Strategies include creating ethical frameworks, integrating diverse datasets, and emphasizing the importance of clinician-AI collaboration to ensure equitable outcomes. Conclusion and limitations: AI offers transformative opportunities for cardiology, yet its success hinges on addressing ethical, technical, and regulatory challenges. Robust frameworks promoting fairness, transparency, and privacy are crucial. Limitations include a lack of real-world validation and the need for ongoing oversight to adapt to evolving clinical demands.
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.