ReviewJAMIA open2026
Algorithmic fairness in machine-learning models for determining the progression or recurrence of cardiovascular disease in racialized populations: a scoping review.
Review in JAMIA open, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To examine how algorithmic fairness is measured, operationalized, and reported in machine learning (ML) models designed to predict or support secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes including progression, recurrence, readmission, and post-index mortality in racialized populations. Materials and Methods: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines and registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9W67V). Systematic searches of OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and CENTRAL were performed to identify studies evaluating fairness in ML models applied to secondary cardiovascular outcomes. Results: Of 2669 records screened, three retrospective cohort studies met inclusion criteria. All studies used large-scale electronic health record data from the United States and evaluated model performance across racial subgroups. Only one study implemented fairness-aware model development, reporting improvements of approximately 5%-12% in equity-related metrics, accompanied by modest trade-offs in calibration and sensitivity. The remaining studies assessed fairness post hoc and demonstrated limited ability to mitigate subgroup performance differences. Discussion: Most full-text studies excluded during screening addressed fairness in predicting primary CVD incidence rather than secondary outcomes, highlighting a substantial gap in the literature. Across included studies, observed fairness limitations appeared to be driven largely by upstream structural and data-generating factors such as representation, care patterns, and documentation rather than algorithmic design alone. Conclusion: Evidence on algorithmic fairness in ML models for secondary cardiovascular outcomes remains sparse. Improved reporting of subgroup performance, missingness, and calibration, alongside integration of fairness throughout model development, is necessary before equitable clinical deployment. Study Registration: Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9W67V.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.