ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2026
Accuracy of ChatGPT and DeepSeek in answering clinical questions from the 2025 Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions/Heart Rhythm Society left atrial appendage occlusion guidelines.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of ChatGPT and DeepSeek in answering guideline-based clinical questions in cardiology.MethodsIn August 2025, responses generated from four large language models to eight clinical questions based on the 2025 Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions/Heart Rhythm Society guidelines were evaluated. Three cardiologists independently rated accuracy using a six-point Likert scale: (a) completely incorrect; (b) more incorrect than correct; (c) nearly equally correct and incorrect; (d) more correct than incorrect; (e) nearly all correct; and (f) completely correct. Reproducibility (Fleiss' kappa coefficient, five repeated queries) and inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient) were assessed.ResultsThe median (interquartile range) accuracy scores were 5.5 (5, 6) for ChatGPT-5, 6 (5, 6) for ChatGPT-4o, and 5 (4, 6) for both DeepSeek-R1 and DeepSeek-V3, with a significant overall difference (p < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons showed significantly higher accuracy for ChatGPT models than for DeepSeek models (all p < 0.001), whereas no significant differences were observed between ChatGPT-5 and ChatGPT-4o (p = 0.518) or between DeepSeek-R1 and DeepSeek-V3 (p = 0.812). Reproducibility (Fleiss' kappa coefficient) was excellent for ChatGPT-5 (0.803) and good for ChatGPT-4o (0.574), DeepSeek-R1 (0.577), and DeepSeek-V3 (0.618). Overall inter-rater reliability was moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.463).ConclusionsChatGPT and DeepSeek demonstrated high accuracy and reproducibility but moderate inter-rater reliability, necessitating further validation for educational use.
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.