Racial and ethnic disparities in aortic stenosis within a universal healthcare system characterized by natural language processing for targeted intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims Aortic stenosis (AS) is a condition marked by high morbidity and mortality in severe, symptomatic cases without intervention via transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Racial and ethnic disparities in access to these treatments have been documented, particularly in North America, where socioeconomic factors such as health insurance confound analyses. This study evaluates disparities in AS management across racial and ethnic groups, accounting for socioeconomic deprivation, using an artificial intelligence (AI) framework. Methods and results We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a natural language processing pipeline to analyse both structured and unstructured data from > 1 million patients at a London hospital. Key variables included age, sex, self-reported race and ethnicity, AS severity, and socioeconomic status. The primary outcomes were rates of valvular intervention and all-cause mortality. Among 6967 patients with AS, Black patients were younger, more symptomatic, and more comorbid than White patients. Black patients with objective evidence of AS on echocardiography were less likely to receive a clinical diagnosis than White patients. In severe AS, TAVI and SAVR procedures were performed at lower rates among Black patients than among White patients, with a longer time to SAVR. In multivariate analysis of severe AS, controlling for socioeconomic status, Black patients experienced higher mortality (hazard ratio = 1.42, 95% confidence interval = 1.05–1.92, P = 0.02). Conclusion An AI framework characterizes racial and ethnic disparities in AS management, which persist in a universal healthcare system, highlighting targets for future healthcare interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".