Abstract
Introduction During the last few years, we have witnessed a surge in the utilization of Large Language Models (LLMs) for diverse applications in clinical medicine. Their utility extends to enhancing ECG interpretation, data analysis, and risk prediction in cardiology. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of LLMs in answering cardiology-specific questions of various difficulty levels.
Methods This study undertakes a comparative analysis of three state-of-the-art LLMs: Google Bard, GPT-3.5 Turbo, and GPT-4.0, against four distinct sets of clinical scenarios with increasing complexity. These scenarios cover a range of cardiovascular topics, from prevention to the management of acute illnesses and complex pathologies. The responses generated by the LLMs were assessed for accuracy, understanding of medical terminology, clinical relevance, and appropriateness. The evaluations were conducted by a panel of experienced cardiologists.
Results All models showed an understanding of medical terminology, but the application of this knowledge varied. GPT-4.0 outperforms Google Bard and GPT-3.5 Turbo across a spectrum of cardiology-related clinical scenarios, demonstrating a strong understanding of medical terminology, contextual understanding, and most proficiently aligning its responses with current guidelines. Limitations were seen in the models’ abilities to reference ongoing clinical trials.
Conclusion LLMs showed promising results in ability to interpret and apply complex clinical guidelines when answering vignette-based clinical queries, with a potential for enhancing patient outcomes through personalized advice. However, they should be utilized with a grain of salt, as supplementary tools in clinical cardiology.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
We have refined our methodology section, separated the results and discussion sections, and introduced the limitations.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
