Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41601756›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025

Diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT for 12-lead ECG-based localisation of ventricular ectopic foci prior to catheter ablation.

Kadri Murat Gürses, Hüseyin Tezcan, Muhammed Ulvi Yalçın, Halil Özalp, Abdullah Tunçez, Yasin Özen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kadri Murat GürsesDepartment of Cardiology, Selcuk University Medical Faculty Hospital, Konya, Türkiye.
Hüseyin TezcanDepartment of Cardiology, Selcuk University Medical Faculty Hospital, Konya, Türkiye.
Muhammed Ulvi YalçınDepartment of Cardiology, Selcuk University Medical Faculty Hospital, Konya, Türkiye.
Halil ÖzalpDepartment of Cardiology, Selcuk University Medical Faculty Hospital, Konya, Türkiye.
Abdullah TunçezDepartment of Cardiology, Selcuk University Medical Faculty Hospital, Konya, Türkiye.
Yasin ÖzenDepartment of Cardiology, Selcuk University Medical Faculty Hospital, Konya, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Precise pre-procedural localisation of ventricular ectopic (VE) foci shortens mapping time, reduces fluoroscopy, and improves ablation success. Large language models such as ChatGPT offer instant, free-text clinical support; however, their accuracy in ECG-based VE localisation is unknown. Methods: In this single-centre pilot study, we assessed the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT in 50 consecutive adults (average age: 43 ± 14 years; 58% women) scheduled for first-time VE ablation. ChatGPT served as the index test, and invasive electroanatomical mapping during the ablation served as the reference standard. A blinded electrophysiologist converted each index 12-lead ECG into a structured textual description of QRS morphology. ChatGPT-4o (temperature 0.2) was then tasked with assigning one of five anatomical origins (RVOT, LVOT, papillary muscle, fascicular, and epicardial). Predictions were compared with electro-anatomical mapping during catheter ablation, and agreement was measured using Cohen's Results: Electro-anatomical mapping identified 30 RVOT, 11 LVOT, 4 papillary, 1 fascicular, and 4 epicardial foci. ChatGPT correctly localised 17/50 cases (34%), yielding an overall Cohen's κ of -0.02 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.14). Sensitivity/specificity was 40%/55% for the RVOT and 36%/62% for the LVOT; no fascicular or epicardial origins were correctly predicted. The performance of ChatGPT did not differ based on the presence of structural heart disease ( Conclusion: Freetext querying of ChatGPT failed to provide clinically meaningful VE localisation, performing no better than chance and markedly below published ECG-based algorithms. This likely reflects the model's lack of domain-specific training and its reliance on purely text-based reasoning without direct access to ECG signals. Current general-purpose language models should not be relied upon for procedural planning in VE ablation; future work must integrate multimodal training and domain-specific optimisation before LLMs can augment electrophysiology practice.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecatheter ablationChatGPTelectrocardiogramventricular ectopy

Identifiers

PMID41601756
PMCPMC12833440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.