ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Sex disparities in deep learning estimation of ejection fraction from cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The advent of artificial intelligence in cardiovascular imaging holds immense potential for earlier diagnoses, precision medicine, and improved disease management. However, the presence of sex-based disparities and strategies to mitigate biases in deep learning models for cardiac imaging remain understudied. In this study, we analyzed algorithmic bias in a foundation model that was pretrained on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and radiology reports from multiple institutes and finetuned to estimate ejection fraction (EF) on the UK Biobank dataset. The model performed significantly worse in EF estimation for females than males in the diagnosis of reduced EF. Algorithmic fairness did not improve despite masking of protected attributes in radiology reports and data resampling, although explicit input of sex in model finetuning may improve EF estimation in some cases. The underdiagnosis of reduced EF among females holds critical implications for the exacerbation of existing sex-based disparities in cardiovascular health. We advise caution in the development of models for cardiovascular imaging to avoid such pitfalls.
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.