ArticleDigital health
Evaluation and comparison of large language model responses to common discharge questions from patients with acute coronary syndrome after percutaneous coronary intervention: An expert-rated comparative study.
Article in Digital health. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: After percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) require long-term medication, risk-factor control, rehabilitation, and symptom recognition. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for health consultation, but their quality, safety, and stability in post-PCI discharge education remain unclear. Methods: Twenty-five standardized Chinese discharge questions were submitted to ChatGPT 5.5 Instant and DeepSeek V3. Each model generated three responses per question (150 total). Three cardiovascular experts rated the original Chinese responses across five Likert domains and two binary safety judgments. Comparisons used exact paired permutation tests, question-clustered bootstrap confidence intervals, and Holm adjustment for six quality-score comparisons. Results: Overall, 149/150 responses (99.3%; 95% CI, 96.3%-100.0%) met the primary safety criterion: 75/75 for ChatGPT (100.0%; 95% CI, 95.2%-100.0%) and 74/75 for DeepSeek (98.7%; 95% CI, 92.8%-100.0%). The paired risk difference was 1.3 percentage points (95% CI, -1.3 to 2.7; P=1.000). One DeepSeek response contained both a major error and a potentially harmful recommendation. After pairing and Holm adjustment, ChatGPT scored higher in accuracy, guideline concordance, completeness, and total quality (adjusted P=0.015, 0.015, 0.019, and 0.005). Five-domain satisfactory response rates did not differ significantly (100.0% vs 90.7%; P=0.125). Conclusions: Both models produced few expert-adjudicated safety flags in this limited question set. ChatGPT received higher ratings in selected quality domains, but sparse safety events and restricted question coverage preclude conclusions of equivalence or clinical safety. LLM-generated discharge information should supplement, not replace, individualized clinical advice.
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.