Key result
ChatGPT-4 and Gemini show poor ECG interpretation, matching expert consensus in at most ~31% of cases.
Why the study?
The reliability of large language models for ECG analysis in cardiology remains uncertain despite rapid AI advancements.
Does AI-based ECG analysis using ChatGPT-4 and Gemini accurately interpret ECGs compared to expert electrophysiologist consensus in patients referred for arrhythmology consultation?
Cross-Sectional (n=130)
Does AI-based ECG analysis using ChatGPT-4 and Gemini accurately interpret ECGs compared to expert electrophysiologist consensus in patients referred for arrhythmology consultation?
Current large language models (ChatGPT-4 and Gemini) perform poorly at interpreting ECGs and cannot replace expert electrophysiologist evaluation.
Supports caution against relying on ChatGPT-4 or Gemini for ECG interpretation; leaves open whether refined models can reach expert accuracy.
Background The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine, including cardiology, is rapidly advancing. Large language models have introduced new possibilities for ECG analysis, though their reliability remains uncertain. This study evaluated the accuracy of ECG interpretations by ChatGPT-4, developed by OpenAI, and Gemini, developed by Google AI. Methods We uploaded anonymized ECGs from 130 patients referred for arrhythmology consultation for analysis by the AIs. The control group consisted of a consensus from three experienced electrophysiologist. Results Both Chat GPT-4 and Gemini exhibited low accuracy compared to the expert consensus: the most likely diagnoses matched the expert consensus in only 31.21% of cases for Chat GPT-4 and 25.64% for Gemini. Chat GPT-4 performed best in recognizing sinus rhythm, achieving an accuracy of 85.72%, while Gemini identified sinus rhythm correctly in only 28.57% of cases. For Gemini, the best results were observed in the identification of atrial fibrillation, with a 48.89% match rate, compared to a 35.56% accuracy for Chat GPT-4. Conclusion The latest Chat GPT-4 and Gemini AI models perform poorly in interpreting ECGs of patients referred to an arrhythmia clinic. Their use currently does not provide adequate assistance and does not replace expert evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bocz et al. (2025) conducted a cross-sectional in Arrhythmia (n=130). ChatGPT-4 and Gemini AI models vs. Consensus from three experienced electrophysiologists was evaluated on Match rate of most likely diagnoses with expert consensus. ChatGPT-4 and Gemini AI models demonstrated low accuracy in interpreting ECGs compared to expert consensus, matching the correct diagnosis in only 31.21% and 25.64% of cases, respectively.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: