ReviewCirculation. Genomic and precision medicine2026
Detecting and Mitigating Bias for Inclusive and Trustworthy Clinical Research: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.
Review in Circulation. Genomic and precision medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in clinical trials-state of the evidence, gaps, and next steps.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Clinical AI and Precision Medicine: Philosophical Questions About Labels, Disease, and Evidence.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Evidence, use cases, and implementation safeguards of large language models in primary care.Communications medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bias in clinical research affects not only the internal validity of studies but also the equitable distribution of health benefits derived from studies. Among the most impactful forms are selection bias, attrition bias, and algorithmic bias, each of which is capable of distorting participant representation, treatment effect estimates, and model performance across important subgroups. This scientific statement provides a reference for cardiovascular researchers and clinicians, integrating detection, correction, and prevention strategies to address these biases. Selection bias may be mitigated through approaches such as inverse probability weighting and adjustment for sociodemographic imbalances; attrition bias can be addressed using intention-to-treat analyses and multiple imputation for missing data that are missing at random; algorithmic bias requires fairness-aware modeling, diverse training data sets, and explainable artificial intelligence techniques. These 3 forms of bias are not exhaustive, but their careful management is essential to achieving scientific rigor, fairness, and real-world applicability, and requires multidisciplinary collaboration to embed equity and validity throughout the research lifecycle.
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.