ArticleBMC medical education2026
Assessing the accuracy and educational value of ChatGPT-generated content for core topics in cardiology: a descriptive analysis at Selçuk University Cardiology Clinic.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Comparative Evaluation of ChatGPT and Google Search Output for Caregiver Education in Tetralogy of Fallot.Cardiology and therapy · 2026Article
- Quality, readability, and clinical-risk signals of default public-interface LLM responses to vascular and perioperative patient questions: a cross-sectional snapshot.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have garnered growing attention for their potential to support medical education, including specialty areas like cardiology. However, the accuracy, guideline adherence, and pedagogical usefulness of these AI-generated materials remain incompletely characterized.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the factual accuracy, guideline alignment, and teaching utility of ChatGPT-generated responses on 15 core cardiology topics.
methodsFifteen high-yield cardiology subjects (e.g., acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, valvular disease, arrhythmias) were identified based on standard medical curricula. Each topic was queried with 10 standardized prompts (150 total). Two cardiologists independently rated each ChatGPT response across five domains (factual accuracy, completeness, clarity/readability, guideline alignment, and teaching utility) using a 5-point rubric. Representative examples of higher- and lower-performing responses were also reviewed qualitatively to illustrate recurrent strengths and common error patterns. Inter-rater reliability was assessed via Cohen's kappa (κ), and descriptive statistics summarized performance by domain and by topic. All prompts were entered using the free web version of ChatGPT (OpenAI; GPT-4o) under standardized default settings during October-November 2024.
resultsClarity/readability (4.4 ± 0.5) was the highest-scoring domain overall, while factual accuracy (3.7 ± 0.6) showed moderate performance. Guideline alignment varied across the 15 topics, ranging from 4.2 in stable angina to 3.0 in complex pericardial diseases. Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) also had lower guideline concordance (3.1 ± 0.6). Illustrative examples indicated that lower scores were most often driven by omission of newer therapies, incomplete discussion of advanced procedural indications, and overly generic explanations in more complex subspecialty topics. Cohen's kappa values (0.78-0.85) indicated substantial inter-rater agreement. DISCUSSION: ChatGPT provided coherent explanations suitable for introductory learning across most cardiology topics, but gaps were evident in rapidly evolving areas like advanced heart failure and congenital anomalies. These findings underscore ChatGPT's value as a supplementary educational tool while highlighting the need for careful expert oversight in verifying content accuracy and currency. Strategies for safely integrating AI-generated materials into medical education are discussed.
conclusionsWhile ChatGPT can aid cardiology instruction through clear, concise overviews, reliance on it as a primary source risks propagation of incomplete or outdated information. Ongoing refinement of LLMs, coupled with consistent expert review, will be crucial for leveraging AI effectively in cardiology education.
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.