ArticleIndian pediatrics2026
Comparative Interpretation of Pediatric Electrocardiograms by Large Language Models and a Pediatrician.
Article in Indian pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond Accuracy: Defining the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Electrocardiography.Indian pediatrics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLarge language models (LLMs) have been explored for clinical applications, yet their reliability in pediatric electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation remains unclear. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of three general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) systems-ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot-with that of a pediatrician and characterized error patterns across the platforms.
methodsA total of 178 children (median age 108 months) underwent standard 12-lead ECG recording at a single center between January 2024 and July 2025. One pediatrician and three LLMs interpreted each ECG using a zero-shot design; responses were compared against a definitive diagnosis established through expert consensus. Rhythms were classified as physiological or pathological, with subgroup analysis for rhythms calling for emergency intervention.
resultsThe pediatrician achieved the highest accuracy (78.7%), followed by ChatGPT (71.9%), Copilot (66.9%), and Gemini (50.0%). Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve confirmed pediatrician superiority (0.79) over ChatGPT (0.70), Copilot (0.63), and Gemini (0.54). Agreement with definitive diagnosis was moderate for the pediatrician (κ = 0.566) and ChatGPT (κ = 0.410), but weak or nonsignificant for Copilot and Gemini. Error profiles differed markedly; Gemini showed a high false negative rate (39.9%), while Copilot showed a high false positive rate (24.7%).
conclusionsThe clinician outperformed the LLMs in pediatric ECG interpretation. Diagnostic accuracy varied markedly across the models, with reliability limits particularly evident in high-risk rhythms. In their current form, these systems may serve as supplementary tools under expert oversight rather than independent decision-makers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42455258What 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.