ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Retrospective comparison of ChatGPT-4 treatment recommendations with real-world physician management in newly diagnosed hypertension: a single-centre study.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the availability of effective first-line therapies, hypertension remains underdiagnosed and undertreated worldwide. Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT-4, may support guideline-adherent prescribing, yet their role in chronic disease management has not been adequately studied. Objectives: To assess the concordance between ChatGPT-4's antihypertensive treatment recommendations and real-world physician prescriptions, and to evaluate the association between treatment concordance and short-term blood pressure (BP) control. Methods: This retrospective, single-centre study included 100 newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve hypertensive adults aged 18-65 years. For each patient, anonymized clinical data were retrospectively entered into ChatGPT-4 after the clinical encounter using a standardized prompt based on ESC/ESH and ACC/AHA guidelines. These recommendations were generated retrospectively after the clinical encounter and were not available to the treating physicians, who were therefore unaware of the ChatGPT-4 outputs.ChatGPT-4 recommendations were generated for study comparison only and did not influence physician prescribing or patient management. The primary outcome was concordance between AI and physician treatment decisions. Secondary outcomes included BP control at 30 ± 5 days and the distribution of therapy classes among uncontrolled cases. Statistical analyses included Cohen's Results: ChatGPT-4 and physician treatment choices showed substantial agreement (κ = 0.67). Guideline-recommended dual therapy (e.g., ACEi + thiazide) was selected in 74% of ChatGPT-4 and 67% of physician cases. BP control was achieved in 73% of concordant cases versus 40% of discordant cases. Concordance was independently associated with BP control (adjusted OR = 3.8; 95% CI: 1.5-9.5). Among uncontrolled cases, ChatGPT-4 more frequently recommended fixed-dose combination therapy. Conclusion: ChatGPT-4 demonstrated strong concordance with expert prescribing patterns, and concordant cases had higher rates of early BP control. Because ChatGPT-4 recommendations were generated retrospectively and did not guide treatment, these findings should be interpreted as showing an association rather than causation, and they warrant prospective validation.
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.