ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluating GPT-4's role in critical patient management in emergency departments.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
introductionRecent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have introduced tools like ChatGPT-4, capable of interpreting visual data, including ECGs. In our study,we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of GPT-4 in interpreting ECGs and managing patient care in emergency settings.
methodsConducted from April to May 2024, this study evaluated GPT-4 using twenty case scenarios sourced from PubMed Central and the OSCE sample question book. These cases, categorized into common and rare scenarios, were analyzed by GPT-4, and its interpretations were reviewed by five experienced emergency medicine specialists. The accuracy of ECG interpretations and subsequent patient management plans were assessed using a structured evaluation framework and critical error identification.
resultsGPT-4 made critical errors in 46% of ECG interpretations in the OSCE group and 50% in the PubMed group. For patient management, critical errors were found in 32% of the OSCE group and 14% of the PubMed group. When ECG evaluations were included in patient management, error rates approached 50%. The inter-rater reliability among evaluators indicated good agreement (ICC = 0.725, F = 3.72, p < 0.001).
conclusionWhile GPT-4 shows promise in specific applications, its current limitations in accurately interpreting ECGs and managing critical patient scenarios render it inappropriate for emergency department use. Future improvements and extensive validations are essential before such AI tools can be reliably deployed in critical healthcare settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.