ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Comparative study of the performance of ChatGPT-4, Claude, Gemini, Mistral, and perplexity on multiple-choice questions in cardiology.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), has revolutionized the field of medicine. Their ability to understand and answer medical questions is generating growing interest, especially in cardiology, where diagnostic and therapeutic accuracy is essential.
objectiveThe objective of our study was to assess and compare the performance of five LLMs on multiple-choice questions (MCQs) in cardiology. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a comparative study conducted in the cardiology department of the Bogodogo University Hospital, Ouagadougou, involving 83 MCQs derived from the 2020 French national cardiology curriculum. The questions were submitted to ChatGPT-4, Claude, Gemini, Mistral, and Perplexity. Performance was evaluated based on overall and thematic accuracy, as well as the number of discordances. Agreement between the LLMs was assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
resultsClaude achieved the highest overall accuracy (78.31%), followed by ChatGPT-4 and Gemini (75.90%), then Mistral (72.29%) and Perplexity (68.67%). Each LLM demonstrated a distinct performance profile by topic, with Claude excelling in heart failure (100%) and arrhythmias (90.9%), and ChatGPT-4 in diagnostic investigations (87.5%). The analysis of discordances showed a slightly higher precision for ChatGPT-4. The Kruskal-Wallis test with effect size revealed statistically significant differences in performance between the LLMs, whether globally, by topic (p < 0.05) and with generally large effect sizes.
conclusionDespite variations in their performance profiles, these five LLMs studied have relatively similar capabilities for answering well-structured cardiology multiple-choice questions. They could therefore be valuable tools in medical education in our resource-limited context.
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.