ArticleOpen heart2025
Artificial intelligence in coronary angiography: benchmarking the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT-4o against interventional cardiologists.
Article in Open heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Theory to Practice: GPT-Supported Data Extraction in Observational Studies on Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Navigating the intelligence revolution: transforming cardiovascular care through AI-driven innovation.Open heart · 2026Article
- A multisource cue fusion-based method for coronary artery stenosis detection in digital subtraction angiography.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into medical diagnostics has significantly impacted cardiology by enhancing diagnostic precision and therapeutic strategies. Coronary artery disease continues to be a leading cause of global morbidity and mortality, with coronary angiography being the diagnostic gold standard. However, the subjective nature of angiographic interpretation can lead to inconsistent assessment. AI aims to provide automated, objective assessments to mitigate these challenges.
methodsThis study evaluated ChatGPT with Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT)-4o (OpenAI, USA), for automated coronary angiogram interpretation. Due to its inability to process video data, we extracted maximum contrast frames from diagnostic angiogram views. These anonymised images were analysed by GPT-4o. Its diagnostic findings and stent recommendations were compared with expert cardiologist assessments.
resultsWe included 100 patients who underwent coronary interventions between January and April 2024. GPT-4o accurately identified coronary vessels in 98% of images. The overall sensitivity for detecting lesions requiring intervention was 71.6%, with a specificity of 57.2% (F1 score 0.652). Performance varied by vessel with best results for left anterior descending artery (sensitivity 81.0%; specificity 69.3%) and right coronary artery (sensitivity 86.5%; specificity 61.4%). Identification of the target vessel based solely on imaging was 47%, which improved to 87% with additional clinical information.
conclusionsGPT-4o shows potential as a supportive tool in coronary angiography interpretation. Its diagnostic performance improves significantly when contextual clinical information is included. However, its accuracy based on static images alone remains below the threshold required for reliable diagnostic and therapeutic support. The lack of cine-loop data as an essential element in real-world angiographic interpretation is a key limitation. Future developments should focus on enhancing AI capabilities for analysing complex anatomical structures and integrating dynamic imaging data to augment clinical utility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.