ArticleBMC emergency medicine2026
ECG-based detection of occlusion myocardial infarction: a dedicated deep neural network versus multimodal large language models and physicians - a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation for acute coronary occlusion is a critical, time-sensitive task in emergency care. The field is increasingly shifting from the ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction paradigm to the broader concept of occlusion myocardial infarction (OMI). This study compared the diagnostic accuracy of a dedicated occlusion-detection deep neural network, Queen of Hearts (QoH), two general-purpose multimodal large language models (LLMs), and emergency physicians for ECG-based OMI detection. Response consistency and confidence calibration of the LLMs were also evaluated.
methodsThis retrospective diagnostic accuracy study used 36 twelve-lead ECGs from patients referred for emergent coronary angiography, including 24 with angiographically confirmed acute coronary occlusion and 12 without. Five emergency medicine specialists, five emergency medicine residents, and two LLMs, ChatGPT 5.2 and Gemini 3 Pro, interpreted all ECGs under a standardized moderate-risk acute coronary syndrome scenario. The same ECGs were submitted to QoH. Each LLM evaluated the set five times in separate sessions, whereas QoH was queried once because it provides deterministic output. In the primary head-to-head analysis, each interpreter or interpreter group contributed a single decision per ECG. Areas under the curve (AUCs) were compared using the DeLong test, binary metrics using the exact McNemar test, and reliability using Fleiss' kappa.
resultsQoH showed the highest discrimination for OMI (AUC 0.96), followed by ChatGPT (0.81) and Gemini (0.62). QoH also achieved the highest sensitivity (95.8%, missing one of 24 occlusions) and accuracy (86.1%), with significantly higher sensitivity than emergency specialists (p = 0.016). Among physicians, specialists performed best (accuracy 75.0%; sensitivity 66.7%; specificity 91.7%). ChatGPT showed high specificity (91.7%) but low sensitivity (54.2%), whereas Gemini performed least well overall (accuracy 55.6%). The LLMs produced variable interpretations across repeated queries (Fleiss' kappa 0.24-0.49), and Gemini showed marked overconfidence (Brier score 0.40).
conclusionsIn this OMI-focused study, QoH showed the highest discrimination and sensitivity for acute coronary occlusion. General-purpose LLMs showed clinically important limitations and do not currently support autonomous OMI diagnosis. These findings support further evaluation of task-specific models for ECG-based occlusion detection and suggest, at most, an adjunctive, human-supervised role for current general-purpose LLMs.
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.