ArticleArchives of Iranian medicine2025
Performance of ChatGPT and Gemini Compared with Emergency Physicians in NSTEMI Cases: A Prospective Cross-sectional Study.
Article in Archives of Iranian medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiagnosing non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in busy emergency departments is challenging. Artificial intelligence (AI) systems, particularly large language models (LLMs), offer potential as clinical decision support tools. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of ChatGPT and Gemini in NSTEMI cases by comparing their responses to multiple-choice questions with those of emergency physicians.
methodsThis prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted via an online survey among 1,106 emergency physicians in Turkey. The survey included ten NSTEMI-related multiple-choice questions based on the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. The same questions were presented to ChatGPT 4.0 and Gemini 2.5, queried using identical standardized prompts (temperature=0, no web access) on April 20, 2025. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 26.0.
resultsAI models significantly outperformed physicians, correctly answering nine of ten questions versus the physicians' mean of 7.62±1.32 (
conclusionChatGPT and Gemini demonstrated superior performance over emergency physicians in NSTEMI clinical questions, highlighting AI's potential to enhance medical education, clinical decision support, and patient care. These findings, however, are limited by the non-proctored online setting and absence of real clinical context. Future research should focus on optimizing AI-clinician collaboration for safe and effective integration.
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.