ArticleCardiovascular ultrasound2026
Evaluating sex bias in artificial intelligence-based echocardiographic analysis: a retrospective study on individuals with normal cardiac function and patients with systolic and diastolic dysfunction.
Article in Cardiovascular ultrasound, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to improve echocardiography. However, AI systems may exhibit sex bias, reproducing societal stereotypes and performing worse for certain groups, potentially leading to unequal healthcare outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether there are sex-related differences in the agreement between a fully automated AI-based analysis and routine echocardiographic report generated by the interpreting cardiologist in patients undergoing transthoracic echocardiography.
methodsThis retrospective study evaluated seven echocardiographic parameters in 95 women and 88 men by comparing AI-generated values with clinical assessments. Participants included individuals with normal cardiac function (34 women, 31 men) and patients with systolic (30 women, 29 men) or diastolic dysfunction (31 women, 28 men). Parameters included ejection fraction, left ventricular volume, left atrial volume, é velocities (septal and lateral), tricuspid valve regurgitation, and E/é ratio. Potential sex-based differences were assessed by comparing agreement between clinical and AI-generated values in women and men using correlations, absolute errors, Bland-Altman analyses and AUC values.
resultsCorrelation coefficients in women ranged from 0.67 to 0.93 and in men from 0.32 to 0.93. Absolute errors did not differ significantly between sexes for five of the seven evaluated parameters. However, men showed a higher absolute error for TR velocity (0.15 vs. 0.07, p = 0.001), whereas women showed a higher absolute error for the E/é ratio (0.76 vs. 0.39, p < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis showed larger mean differences in men for five of seven parameters. The magnitude of the differences in AUC values between women and men was small, ranging from 0.017 (TR velocity) to 0.048 (left ventricular ejection fraction).
conclusionsThis study did not demonstrate systematic sex-related differences in AI performance, but the findings require confirmation in larger cohorts. Continued monitoring for bias remains important as AI integration in echocardiography expands.
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.