ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2026
Etiologic classification of suspected MINOCA using cardiovascular magnetic resonance reports: a comparison of a large language model and human readers.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 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.
- Comment on "Etiologic classification of suspected MINOCA using cardiovascular magnetic resonance reports: a comparison of a large language model and human readers".The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study explored the feasibility of using a large language model (LLM) for etiologic classification in patients with suspected myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) based on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) reports. We included 156 patients with MINOCA from a prospective (n = 50) and a retrospective (n = 106) pooled cohort. A large language model and three human readers with different experience levels independently classified CMR reports into eight predefined diagnostic categories, using the final expert CMR diagnosis as the reference standard. Performance and agreement were assessed using standard multiclass classification metrics. In the pooled cohort, the LLM achieved an exact-match diagnostic accuracy of 67.3% (95% CI 59.6-74.2%), lower than the expert reader (80.1%, 95% CI 73.2-85.6) but comparable to the intermediate and junior readers (both 68.6%, 95% CI 60.9-75.4%). Diagnosis-specific analysis showed consistently high specificity for the LLM (mean 94.9%), with sensitivities up to 86.0% and F1-scores up to 85.1% for common etiologies. Agreement between the LLM and the reference standard was substantial (ICC 0.84, 95% CI: 0.79-0.89) and comparable to experienced readers, whereas agreement with the junior reader was markedly lower, indicating greater diagnostic variability despite similar accuracy. A large language model shows promise as a supportive tool for etiologic classification in suspected MINOCA from CMR reports, with performance comparable to less experienced readers and high agreement with the final expert CMR diagnosis. Integration into structured reporting workflows may enhance diagnostic consistency in routine clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41870764What 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.