ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Artificial Intelligence for Biomedical Diagnostics: Diagnostic Accuracy and Reliability of Multimodal Large Language Models in Electrocardiogram Interpretation.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The electrocardiogram (ECG) is a central tool in cardiovascular diagnostics, yet interpretation requires expertise and remains subject to variability. Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown emerging capabilities in medical image analysis, but their performance in ECG interpretation remains insufficiently characterized. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and inter-run reliability of five MLLMs across ECG interpretation tasks. Thirteen standard 12-lead ECGs were presented to five models (ChatGPT-5.3, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude Opus 4.6, Grok 4.1, and ERNIE 5.0) across five independent runs per case, yielding 2275 task-level assessments. Six categorical interpretation tasks (rhythm, electrical axis, PR/P-wave morphology, QRS duration, ST/T-wave morphology, and QTc interval) were compared with expert-consensus ground truth, while heart rate estimation was evaluated using mean absolute error (MAE). Overall categorical accuracy ranged from 52.3% to 64.9%. QRS duration classification achieved the highest accuracy (66.2-90.8%), whereas ST/T-wave assessment showed the lowest performance (20.0-41.5%). Heart rate MAE ranged from 14.8 to 46.7 bpm. A dissociation between diagnostic accuracy and inter-run reliability was observed across models. These findings indicate that current MLLMs do not achieve clinically reliable ECG interpretation performance and highlight the importance of assessing diagnostic accuracy and inter-run reliability when evaluating artificial intelligence systems in biomedical diagnostics.
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.