Pilot study examines AI management of visceral aneurysms, suggesting potential for automated validation processes.
IntroductionVisceral aneurysms pose diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in vascular surgery. Large language models (LLMs) may assist in clinical decision-making, but their application requires rigorous validation. Traditional validation methods are labor-intensive and difficult to scale.ObjectiveWe examined the capability of an LLM in managing visceral aneurysms and explored an automated framework for validating AI-generated clinical responses.MethodsUsing Python with the Pandas library and OpenAI API, we probed the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) clinical practice guidelines on visceral aneurysm management. ChatGPT-4o-mini was instructed to review guideline recommendations, generate clinical scenarios, propose management strategies, and evaluate its own responses using a four-tier rubric (1 = completely correct; 2 = partially correct; 3 = partially incorrect; 4 = no correct information). Human evaluators independently assessed the same responses and graded questions as good, fair, or poor and whether they were leading.ResultsEighty visceral aneurysm scenarios were generated and evaluated. ChatGPT-4o-mini self-assessed 89% of responses as correct (scores 1-2), compared to 67% by human evaluators (chi-square, P < 0.0001), with the greatest discrepancy in the partially correct category. Most AI-generated questions were of good quality (56%), though 44% were considered leading questions.ConclusionAn automated validation framework for AI-generated clinical responses is feasible. However, the 67% correctness rate and systematic AI self-overestimation indicate that current LLMs remain unsuitable for independent clinical use, reinforcing the need for expert oversight. The integration of Python-driven automation, structured AI inference, and expert review holds promise for increasing the efficiency of evaluating LLMs at-scale across clinical domains.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bresler et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: