ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2026
Evaluating algorithmic fairness in the performance of the AHA PREVENT equations versus pooled cohort equations among single-race and multiracial populations.
Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The performance of AHA PREVENT equation among multiracial individuals has not been assessed. Objective: To assess model performance and fairness of the AHA PREVENT ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) Equation versus Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) among single-race and disaggregated multiracial individuals. Method: This is a retrospective cohort data analysis using electronic health record from a 2010-2023 primary care population in a large integrated healthcare system in California. Patient population was restricted to those who are eligible for both the AHA PREVENT base equation and PCE. The primary outcomes were incident ASCVD based on diagnosis codes. We compared measures of model performance as well as algorithmic fairness between PCE and AHA PREVENT, using Disparate Impact (DI), Average Odds Difference (AOD), and Equal Opportunity Difference (EOD). Results: A total of 298,276 patients aged 40-79 years were included, with an average follow-up time of 8 years (SD=3), of which 9% (N=26,761) self-identified as multiracial. In aggregate, 3.9% of multiracial patients developed ASCVD, ranging from 2.9% (Multiple Asian) to 5.4% (Multiracial American Indian/Alaska Native), compared to 4.4% of all single-race patients. Discriminatory performance of the AHA PREVENT ASCVD Equation was good for aggregated multiracial groups (AUC=0.747), ranging from 0.692 (Multiracial Black) to 0.793 (Multiracial Pacific Islander), and was comparable to single-race groups (AUC=0.753). Calibration was generally good among most multiracial groups. However, the AHA PREVENT ASCVD Equation was fairer in its predictive ability when compared to the PCE for all three fairness metrics. Conclusions and relevance: With good discriminatory ability and calibration for single race and multiracial groups, the AHA PREVENT ASCVD Equation provides both more accurate and fairer estimates of ASCVD risk compared to PCE.
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.