ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Comparative performance of AI models and clinicians in evidence-based cardiovascular disease management for people living with HIV: Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWidespread antiretroviral therapy has greatly extended the life expectancy of people living with HIV (PLWH), making cardiovascular disease (CVD) one of their primary comorbidities. Nevertheless, significant cross-specialty knowledge gaps persist in routine clinical practice. Siloed disciplinary expertise results in low clinical adherence to guideline-recommended risk management interventions, highlighting an urgent demand for integrated, evidence-based tools that break down interdisciplinary barriers. Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated robust medical knowledge retrieval and reasoning capacity in recent years, yet no systematic evaluation has determined whether these models can bridge such knowledge gaps and facilitate multidisciplinary collaborative CVD management for PLWH.
objectiveThis study compared the performance of four mainstream AI models (Deepseek-V3, Deepseek-R1, ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-o4-mini) and 12 human clinicians (8 infectious disease specialists and 4 cardiologists) in addressing guideline-based CVD management tasks for PLWH.
methodsBased on four authoritative domestic and international guidelines on HIV and CVD care, a structured 25-question assessment battery was developed via two rounds of Delphi expert consultation, with standard reference answers and an evaluation framework finalized through expert consensus. Responses of the four LLMs were generated with standardized prompts, while 12 clinicians answered identical questions in one-on-one structured interviews, with all verbal replies transcribed verbatim. Six multidisciplinary experts independently rated all responses across four dimensions: accuracy, completeness, readability and reliability, using a 4-point ordinal scale ranging from 1 (poor) to 4 (excellent). Cumulative link mixed models (CLMMs) were applied to analyze intergroup differences.
resultsAll AI models achieved statistically significantly higher scores than clinicians across all evaluation dimensions (p < 0.01). The AI group had mean scores of 3.44-3.68 (median = 4, CV: 0.145-0.178). Restricted by individual factors including specialty background, knowledge reserve, clinical experience, clinicians obtained lower mean scores of 1.78-2.05 (median = 2, CV: 0.428-0.473) with markedly greater score dispersion. Among all AI models, Deepseek-R1 delivered the optimal performance and showed statistically significant advantages over ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-o4-mini and Deepseek-V3 (all p < 0.01). Specialty-stratified CLMM analysis revealed no significant overall score difference between cardiologists and infectious disease specialists (OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.84-1.01, p = 0.094). Dimension-specific CLMMs combined with Wilcoxon rank-sum tests confirmed that cardiologists only earned significantly higher scores in the accuracy dimension (OR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67-0.97, p = 0.0261). Domain-specific performance divergence was observed: cardiologists outperformed infectious disease specialists in CVD risk assessment (2.26 vs 1.83), whereas infectious disease specialists achieved higher scores on drug adverse effect evaluation (2.23 vs 1.65).
conclusionsThis structured Q&A study on CVD management for PLWH found that LLMs outperformed human clinicians on all assessment metrics, with Deepseek-R1 attaining a distinctly superior composite score. The findings support the promising potential of Deepseek-R1 as a cross-disciplinary decision-support tool: it integrates multi-domain complex clinical knowledge, which may help address cross-specialty knowledge barriers, could improve the completeness and precision of clinical information output, and may enhance communication and decision-making efficiency for patients with complicated multimorbidity. To maximize clinical benefits, AI systems should be integrated into multidisciplinary care workflows alongside targeted clinical training to optimize the management of complex comorbidities among PLWH. CLINICALTRIAL:
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.