ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Accuracy Assessment of Large Language Models in Cardiothoracic Anesthesia: A Performance Analysis of Claude and ChatGPT-4 on Subspecialty Board-Style Questions.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence advancements for orthopaedic clinical reasoning: longitudinal assessment of newer models (ChatGPT-5, Grok-3, Gemini 2.5 Flash) compared to clinicians.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- An exploratory study of large language models in preoperative anesthesia assessment and planning for cardiac patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.BMC anesthesiology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare has accelerated rapidly since the public release of ChatGPT (Open AI, San Francisco, California, United States) in 2022. While large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated proficiency in general medical knowledge and licensing examinations, their performance in specialized medical subspecialties remains largely unexplored. Objective The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of two prominent LLMs, Claude (Anthropic PBC, San Francisco, California, United States) and ChatGPT-4, in answering cardiothoracic anesthesia board-style questions and evaluate their potential for clinical decision support in this subspecialty. Methods We developed a Python-based framework to systematically evaluate LLM performance on 100 custom multiple-choice questions covering cardiothoracic anesthesia topics including arrhythmia management, electrophysiology procedures, pacemaker programming, and perioperative complications. Questions were presented to both Claude and ChatGPT-4 via their respective application programming interface (APIs), with responses compared against expert-validated correct answers. The primary outcome was overall accuracy percentage for each model. Results Claude achieved 32% accuracy (32/100 questions), while ChatGPT-4 achieved 23% accuracy (23/100 questions), representing a 9% point difference (p < 0.05). Both models performed below the threshold typically considered acceptable for clinical decision-making (≥80%). Performance varied across question domains, with both models demonstrating marked difficulty in questions requiring complex electrophysiological reasoning and visual data interpretation (e.g., ECG and imaging-based cases). Conclusions Current LLMs demonstrate limited accuracy in subspecialty-level cardiothoracic anesthesia knowledge, highlighting the need for specialized training datasets and model refinement before clinical implementation. These findings underscore the importance of subspecialty-specific validation before deploying AI tools in specialized medical domains.
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.