Cited by 23Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Pragmatic Approaches to the Evaluation and Monitoring of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association

Jain, Sneha S., Goto, Shinichi, Hall, Jennifer L., Khan, Sadiya S., MacRae, Calum A., Ofori, Cyril, Pegus, Cheryl, Pencina, Michael, Peterson, Eric D., Schwamm, Lee H., on behalf of the Council on Clinical Cardiology; Stroke Council, Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young·2025·Circulation

Abstract

The rapid development and integration of artificial intelligence (AI), including predictive, generative, and emerging agentic tools, into cardiovascular and stroke care is outpacing traditional evaluation frameworks and the generation of robust clinical evidence. This science advisory addresses the urgent need for pragmatic, risk-proportionate approaches to the evaluation and monitoring of health care AI. AI implementation practices often rely on real-world or anecdotal evidence, with considerable variability in local validation, bias assessment, and postdeployment monitoring. Several evaluation frameworks exist, but they can be difficult to operationalize, especially outside of well-resourced health systems. We propose and discuss evaluation across 3 phases: predeployment, implementation, and postdeployment. We also provide 4 pragmatic guiding principles for health systems that are beginning to set up AI governance processes, including strategic alignment, ethical evaluation, usefulness and effectiveness evaluation, and financial performance, to inform health system selection, validation, deployment, and actionable monitoring of AI tools. The American Heart Association's extensive hospital and volunteer network and commitment to evidence-based practice position it as a trusted leader in advancing responsible AI governance. By grounding evaluation and monitoring in these principles, this science advisory aims to ensure that AI adoption in health care is safe, effective, equit…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/cir.0000000000001400

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent AHA recommendations emphasise four guiding principles: alignment with organisational strategic priorities, ethical design and use, demonstrable usefulness and effectiveness and sustainable financial performance.

    “Recent AHA recommendations emphasise four guiding principles: alignment with organisational strategic priorities, ethical design and use, demonstrable usefulness and effectiveness and sustainable financial performance.68”

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 38 · Cited by 23

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. 10.1038/s41591-023-02448-8 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/j.jacc.2024.03.400 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.jacc.2024.05.003 · DOI
  4. 10.1038/s41746-022-00611-y · DOI · Paper page
  5. American Medical Association. How to develop AI policies that work for your organization’s needs. Accessed October 16 2025. https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/digital-health/how-develop-ai-policies-work-your-organization-s-needs
  6. 10.1377/hlthaff.2024.00842 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Utilization Review Accreditation Commission. Artificial intelligence in health care. Accessed October 15 2025. https://www.urac.org/accreditation-cert/healthcareai
  8. 10.1001/jama.2024.21700 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1093/jamia/ocae043 · DOI
  10. 10.1001/jama.2024.21772 · DOI
  11. 10.1001/jama.2024.3620 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.03.006 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.3390/jcm14010286 · DOI
  14. 10.1038/s41591-019-0651-8 · DOI
  15. 10.1038/s41591-024-03203-3 · DOI
  16. 10.1056/aipc2500163 · DOI
  17. 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.5020 · DOI
  18. 10.1056/NEJMsb2503956 · DOI
  19. 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000022 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1001/jama.2020.12067 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1186/s41512-024-00184-2 · DOI
  22. 10.1056/NEJMp2406135 · DOI
  23. 10.1056/aip2500651 · DOI
  24. 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.1692 · DOI
  25. 10.1001/jama.2025.18490 · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Jain, S. S., Goto, S., Hall, J. L., Khan, S. S., MacRae, C. A., Ofori, C., Pegus, C., Pencina, M., Peterson, E. D., Schwamm, L. H., & on behalf of the Council on Clinical Cardiology; Stroke Council, C. O. Q. O. C. A. O. R. C. O. C. A. S. N. A. C. O. L. C. H. D. A. H. H. I. T. Y.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2025-12-09
Volume
152
Issue
23
Pages
e433-e442
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W4416093630
Cited by
23
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 23
FWCI
1.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Circulation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
artificial intelligence in healthcare, AI evaluation framework, post-deployment monitoring, AI governance, cardiovascular care, stroke care, generative AI, agentic AI, AI validation, American Heart Association
MeSH terms
American Heart Association, Artificial Intelligence, Cardiovascular Diseases, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Patient Care Management, Quality of Health Care, United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review