ArticleBMC emergency medicine2026
Can ChatGPT compete with emergency medicine specialists? A two-stage assessment of ECG interpretation supported by clinical information.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing integration of AI-powered large language models into clinical workflows has created new opportunities for augmenting diagnostic decision-making in emergency care. This study evaluated whether the customized ECG Reader-GPT model could serve as a supportive tool—rather than a substitute for expert judgment—during ECG interpretation in the emergency department (ED).
methodsThis single-center diagnostic accuracy study analyzed 72 real patient ECGs obtained in a tertiary ED. An expert panel assigned the ECGs to diagnostic subgroups and classified them as easy or difficult based on clinical complexity. Ten emergency medicine specialists (EMSs) interpreted each ECG in two stages: first without clinical information, then with the patient’s history. The same ECG set was assessed by a customized GPT model (ECG Reader-GPT) using standardized English prompts across 10 independent sessions to evaluate performance stability. Two cardiologists, blinded to group assignments, scored all responses using a predefined key.
resultsEMSs demonstrated markedly higher diagnostic accuracy than ECG Reader-GPT in both stages. In Stage 1, specialists correctly interpreted 77% of ECGs, whereas ECG Reader-GPT achieved 24%. With clinical information provided (Stage 2), accuracy increased to 79% and 27%, respectively. The performance of both groups was reduced with difficult ECGs (p < 0.05). Across all diagnostic subgroups, the specialists outperformed the AI model, and both groups scored higher when clinical context was available. Intraclass correlation demonstrated strong within-group consistency (p < 0.001).
conclusionEMSs consistently outperformed ECG Reader-GPT under all conditions, indicating that the model is currently insufficient for real-world ECG interpretation. Although it may offer limited supportive value, its use requires caution, and rigorous external validation is essential before any clinical application.
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.