ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2025
A multi-query, multimodal, receiver-augmented solution to extract contemporary cardiology guideline information using large language models.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: The aim of the current study was to assess the utility of a state-of-the-art large language model (LLM) based on curated, defined clinical practice recommendations to support clinicians in obtaining point-of-care guidelines for individual patient treatment while maintaining transparency. Methods and results: We combined cloud-based and locally run LLMs with versatile open-source tools to form a multi-query, multimodal, retrieval-augmented generation chain that closely reflects European cardiology guidelines in its responses. We compared the performance of this generation chain to other LLMs including GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on a 306-question multiple-choice exam with questions consisting of short patient vignettes from various cardiology subspecialties, originally written to prepare candidates for the European Exam in Core Cardiology. On the multiple-choice test, our system demonstrated overall accuracy of 73.53%, while GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 had overall accuracies of 44.03 and 62.26%, respectively. Our system outperformed GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 for the following categories of questions: coronary artery disease, arrhythmia, other, valvular heart disease, cardiomyopathies, endocarditis, adult congenital heart disease, pericardial disease, cardio-oncology, pulmonary hypertension, and non-cardiac surgery. For maximum transparency, the system also provided reference quotes for its recommendations. Conclusion: Our system demonstrated superior performance in question-answering tasks on a set of core cardiology questions as compared with contemporary publicly available chat models. The current study illustrates that LLMs can be tailored to provide documented and accountable guideline recommendations towards actual clinical needs while ensuring recommendations are derived from up-to-date, trustable, and traceable documents.
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.