ArticlePloS one2026
Differential performance of large language models in advanced cardiac life support assessment: A comprehensive multi-dimensional analysis of accuracy, consistency, and visual recognition capabilities.
Article in PloS one, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge Language Models (LLMs) have been increasingly adopted in healthcare settings, yet comparative evaluations of their performance in standardized medical assessments remain limited. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy and consistency of four LLMs in answering Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) questions.
methodsIn this observational study, 50 ACLS questions were categorized as knowledge-based (n = 29), visual content (n = 12), or case-based (n = 9). Each question was posed to ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 2.0, Claude 3.5, and DeepSeek R1 on three separate occasions to assess consistency. Performance was evaluated using three accuracy metrics: overall accuracy (all three responses correct), strict accuracy (at least two responses correct), and ideal accuracy (at least one response correct).
resultsChatGPT-4o demonstrated superior performance with 100% accuracy across all categories and perfect consistency (Fleiss' Kappa = 1.0). Claude 3.5 achieved 92.0% overall accuracy with excellent consistency (Fleiss' Kappa = 0.89). Gemini 2.0 showed 86.0% overall accuracy with moderate consistency (Fleiss' Kappa = 0.58). DeepSeek R1 performed lowest at 70.0% overall accuracy with moderate consistency (Fleiss' Kappa = 0.58) and failed completely on visual content questions (0%). All models achieved 100% accuracy on knowledge-based questions. Performance differences were statistically significant across models (p < 0.001).
conclusionLLMs demonstrate variable capabilities in ACLS knowledge assessment, with ChatGPT-4o showing exceptional performance. While these models show promise as supplementary tools in resuscitation education and clinical decision support, significant variations in visual recognition capabilities and response consistency highlight the importance of critical evaluation before clinical implementation.
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.