ABSTRACT
Background It is thought that ChatGPT, an advanced language model developed by OpenAI, may in the future serve as an AI-assisted decision support tool in medicine.
Objective To evaluate the accuracy of ChatGPT’s recommendations on medical questions related to common cardiac symptoms or conditions.
Methods We tested ChatGPT’s ability to address medical questions in two ways. First, we assessed its accuracy in correctly answering cardiovascular trivia questions (n=50), based on quizzes for medical professionals. Second, we entered 20 clinical case vignettes on the ChatGPT platform and evaluated its accuracy compared to expert opinion and clinical course.
Results We found that ChatGPT correctly answered 74% of the trivia questions, with slight variation in accuracy in the domains coronary artery disease (80%), pulmonary and venous thrombotic embolism (80%), atrial fibrillation (70%), heart failure (80%) and cardiovascular risk management (60%). In the case vignettes, ChatGPT’s response matched in 90% of the cases with the actual advice given. In more complex cases, where physicians (general practitioners) asked other physicians (cardiologists) for assistance or decision support, ChatGPT was correct in 50% of cases, and often provided incomplete or inappropriate recommendations when compared with expert consultation.
Conclusions Our study suggests that ChatGPT has potential as an AI-assisted decision support tool in medicine, particularly for straightforward, low-complex medical questions, but further research is needed to fully evaluate its potential.
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
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study is part of the Amsterdam Heart Study and exempted from full review Medical Ethic Review Committee of the Amsterdam UMC in February 2023 (W23_07#23.097)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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
Support disclosure: The authors performed an independent investigation; the developer of the investigated AI-tool (ChatGPT) was not involved in the design, conduct or reporting of this work.
Funding statement: This study did not receive any funding.
Conflicts of interest: None
Ethic Review: This study is part of the Amsterdam Heart Study and exempted from full review Medical Ethic Review Committee of the Amsterdam UMC in February 2023 (W23_07#23.097)
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
