Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39072028›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024

Evaluating AI Proficiency in Nuclear Cardiology: Large Language Models take on the Board Preparation Exam.

Valerie Builoff, Aakash Shanbhag, Robert Jh Miller, Damini Dey, Joanna X Liang, Kathleen Flood, Jamieson M Bourque, Panithaya Chareonthaitawee, Lawrence M Phillips, Piotr J Slomka

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Valerie BuiloffDepartments of Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), Imaging and Biomedical Sciences Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Aakash ShanbhagDepartments of Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), Imaging and Biomedical Sciences Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Robert Jh MillerDepartments of Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), Imaging and Biomedical Sciences Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Damini DeyDepartments of Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), Imaging and Biomedical Sciences Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Joanna X LiangDepartments of Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), Imaging and Biomedical Sciences Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Kathleen FloodAmerican Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
Jamieson M BourqueDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine and Radiology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Panithaya ChareonthaitaweeDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Lawrence M PhillipsLeon H. Charney Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Piotr J SlomkaDepartments of Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), Imaging and Biomedical Sciences Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6110-938X

Funding

Patient-specific Outcome Prediction from Cardiovascular Multimodality Imaging by Artificial IntelligenceR35HL161195 · NHLBI · CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER · PI Piotr J Slomka · 2022 to 2026
$5.0M
NHLBI NIH HHS R35 HL161195
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Previous studies evaluated the ability of large language models (LLMs) in medical disciplines; however, few have focused on image analysis, and none specifically on cardiovascular imaging or nuclear cardiology. Objectives: This study assesses four LLMs - GPT-4, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4omni (GPT-4o) (Open AI), and Gemini (Google Inc.) - in responding to questions from the 2023 American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Board Preparation Exam, reflecting the scope of the Certification Board of Nuclear Cardiology (CBNC) examination. Methods: We used 168 questions: 141 text-only and 27 image-based, categorized into four sections mirroring the CBNC exam. Each LLM was presented with the same standardized prompt and applied to each section 30 times to account for stochasticity. Performance over six weeks was assessed for all models except GPT-4o. McNemar's test compared correct response proportions. Results: GPT-4, Gemini, GPT4-Turbo, and GPT-4o correctly answered median percentiles of 56.8% (95% confidence interval 55.4% - 58.0%), 40.5% (39.9% - 42.9%), 60.7% (59.9% - 61.3%) and 63.1% (62.5 - 64.3%) of questions, respectively. GPT4o significantly outperformed other models (p=0.007 vs. GPT-4Turbo, p<0.001 vs. GPT-4 and Gemini). GPT-4o excelled on text-only questions compared to GPT-4, Gemini, and GPT-4 Turbo (p<0.001, p<0.001, and p=0.001), while Gemini performed worse on image-based questions (p<0.001 for all). Conclusion: GPT-4o demonstrated superior performance among the four LLMs, achieving scores likely within or just outside the range required to pass a test akin to the CBNC examination. Although improvements in medical image interpretation are needed, GPT-4o shows potential to support physicians in answering text-based clinical questions.

Indexed as

cardiovascular imaging questionsGPTlarge language modelsNuclear cardiology board exam

Identifiers

PMID39072028
PMCPMC11275690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.