ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2025
Improving large language models accuracy for aortic stenosis treatment via Heart Team simulation: a prompt design analysis.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of large language models in complex coronary artery disease decision-making and potential improvement strategy in a real-world cohort.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- Automating the triage of rheumatology outpatient referrals: a comparative evaluation of 23 large language models under simple and advanced prompting.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- The effects of multitype prompt engineering for large language models in hypertension treatment decisions.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- AI-Automated Risk Operative Stratification for Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential in clinical decision support, but the influence of prompt design on their performance, particularly in complex cardiology decision-making, is not well understood. Methods and results: We retrospectively reviewed 231 patients evaluated by our Heart Team for severe aortic stenosis, with treatment options including surgical aortic valve replacement, transcatheter aortic valve implantation, or medical therapy. We tested multiple prompt-design strategies using zero-shot (0-shot), Chain-of-Thought (CoT), and Tree-of-Thought (ToT) prompting, combined with few-shot prompting, free/guided-thinking, and self-consistency. Patient data were condensed into standardized vignettes and queried using GPT4-o (version 2024-05-13, OpenAI) 40 times per patient under each prompt (147 840 total queries). Primary endpoint was mean accuracy; secondary endpoints included sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and treatment invasiveness. Guided-thinking-ToT achieved the highest accuracy (94.04%, 95% CI 90.87-97.21), significantly outperforming few-shot-ToT (87.16%, 95% CI 82.68-91.63) and few-shot-CoT (85.32%, 95% CI 80.59-90.06; Conclusion: Prompt design significantly impacts LLM performance in clinical decision-making for severe aortic stenosis. Tree-of-Thought prompting markedly improved accuracy and aligned recommendations with expert decisions, though LLMs tended toward conservative treatment approaches.
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.