ArticlePLOS digital health2026
A global analysis of national cardiovascular disease control plans using a multi-agent artificial intelligence model.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular diseases cause nearly one-third of global deaths, yet standalone National Cardiovascular Disease Control Plans remain uncommon and inconsistently structured. We assessed the comprehensiveness of recent national plans using a validated health-systems framework and a multi-agent artificial intelligence model. We identified the most recent official plan for 45 countries from World Health Organisation and World Heart Federation repositories and government sources. We adapted a health-systems planning framework for cardiovascular disease and validated it through a two-stage expert consensus process involving 42 specialists from 28 countries, resulting in 11 elements and 69 sub-elements with standardised definitions and scoring criteria. Plans were analysed using a three-stage artificial intelligence pipeline that ingested documents, applied framework-based scoring, and performed automated validation checks. Sub-elements were scored on a 0-5 scale and summarised by element, World Health Organisation region, and World Bank income group. Overall comprehensiveness was low (median 1.20/5). Plans most consistently addressed strategic direction (median 2.80) and governance arrangements (2.14). Contextual assessment was deficient - threats (0.12) and opportunities (0.29) - as were performance specification elements, including objectives (0.50) and health system outcomes (0.67). The Western Pacific region scored highest (median 1.71) and Africa lowest (0.90), though scores remained below moderate levels across all regions. Income group pairwise comparisons were non-significant across all groups; given the small LIC sample (n = 2), no inferential conclusions about income group differences are drawn. Validation against blinded human review across six countries showed 43.7%exact agreement and 68.0%agreement within one point; ordinal agreement statistics were uniformly weak and non-significant, indicating the approach is validated for structural benchmarking rather than fine-grained qualitative judgement. Most national cardiovascular disease plans articulate vision without sufficient operational detail, particularly for contextual analysis, measurement, and integrated financing. Standardised planning templates and artificial intelligence-supported benchmarking, complemented by expert review, could strengthen national planning quality and enable scalable global comparisons.
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.