ArticleHealth science reports2026
Evaluation of the Diagnostic Capabilities of Artificial Intelligence (GPT-4) in a Cardiology Department in Sub-Saharan Africa: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Health science reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context/Objective: "Generative Pre-trained Transformer" type 4 or GPT-4 is an artificial intelligence (AI) developed by OpenAI. It can be used to generate positive and differential diagnoses. However, its effectiveness in a cardiology department in Africa has not been studied. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of GPT-4 in the cardiology department. Methods: This was a retrospective descriptive cross-sectional study conducted from April 1, 2024 to May 30, 2024 in the cardiology department of the Bogodogo University Hospital. Our primary endpoint was whether the main diagnosis of GPT-4 corresponded to the final diagnosis made by the cardiologists. Results: Out of 50 patients collected, GPT-4 found the diagnosis on the basis of clinical data in 35% (18/50). In 82% (41/50) of cases, GPT-4's diagnosis was one of the cardiologist's three hypotheses and in 64% (32/50) of cases the diagnosis was found with certainty by GPT-4. The differential diagnosis listed by GPT-4 was scored 5 in 46 patients. All the diagnoses of the aetiological groups were found by GPT-4 in 100% (50/50) of cases, except in the hypertensive and ischaemic cardiomyopathy groups. Conclusion: GPT-4 demonstrated a variable ability to generate accurate diagnoses, with a significant improvement when paraclinical data were included.
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.