ECG-based detection of occlusion myocardial infarction: a dedicated deep neural network versus multimodal large language models and physicians - a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Emin Hüseyin Akar, Kamil Kokulu, Ekrem Taha Sert
{"title":"ECG-based detection of occlusion myocardial infarction: a dedicated deep neural network versus multimodal large language models and physicians - a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study.","authors":"Emin Hüseyin Akar, Kamil Kokulu, Ekrem Taha Sert","doi":"10.1186/s12873-026-01716-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accurate electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation for acute coronary occlusion is a critical, time-sensitive task in emergency care. The field is increasingly shifting from the ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction paradigm to the broader concept of occlusion myocardial infarction (OMI). This study compared the diagnostic accuracy of a dedicated occlusion-detection deep neural network, Queen of Hearts (QoH), two general-purpose multimodal large language models (LLMs), and emergency physicians for ECG-based OMI detection. Response consistency and confidence calibration of the LLMs were also evaluated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective diagnostic accuracy study used 36 twelve-lead ECGs from patients referred for emergent coronary angiography, including 24 with angiographically confirmed acute coronary occlusion and 12 without. Five emergency medicine specialists, five emergency medicine residents, and two LLMs, ChatGPT 5.2 and Gemini 3 Pro, interpreted all ECGs under a standardized moderate-risk acute coronary syndrome scenario. The same ECGs were submitted to QoH. Each LLM evaluated the set five times in separate sessions, whereas QoH was queried once because it provides deterministic output. In the primary head-to-head analysis, each interpreter or interpreter group contributed a single decision per ECG. Areas under the curve (AUCs) were compared using the DeLong test, binary metrics using the exact McNemar test, and reliability using Fleiss' kappa.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>QoH showed the highest discrimination for OMI (AUC 0.96), followed by ChatGPT (0.81) and Gemini (0.62). QoH also achieved the highest sensitivity (95.8%, missing one of 24 occlusions) and accuracy (86.1%), with significantly higher sensitivity than emergency specialists (p = 0.016). Among physicians, specialists performed best (accuracy 75.0%; sensitivity 66.7%; specificity 91.7%). ChatGPT showed high specificity (91.7%) but low sensitivity (54.2%), whereas Gemini performed least well overall (accuracy 55.6%). The LLMs produced variable interpretations across repeated queries (Fleiss' kappa 0.24-0.49), and Gemini showed marked overconfidence (Brier score 0.40).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this OMI-focused study, QoH showed the highest discrimination and sensitivity for acute coronary occlusion. General-purpose LLMs showed clinically important limitations and do not currently support autonomous OMI diagnosis. These findings support further evaluation of task-specific models for ECG-based occlusion detection and suggest, at most, an adjunctive, human-supervised role for current general-purpose LLMs.</p>","PeriodicalId":9002,"journal":{"name":"BMC Emergency Medicine","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13545760/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-026-01716-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Accurate electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation for acute coronary occlusion is a critical, time-sensitive task in emergency care. The field is increasingly shifting from the ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction paradigm to the broader concept of occlusion myocardial infarction (OMI). This study compared the diagnostic accuracy of a dedicated occlusion-detection deep neural network, Queen of Hearts (QoH), two general-purpose multimodal large language models (LLMs), and emergency physicians for ECG-based OMI detection. Response consistency and confidence calibration of the LLMs were also evaluated.

Methods: This retrospective diagnostic accuracy study used 36 twelve-lead ECGs from patients referred for emergent coronary angiography, including 24 with angiographically confirmed acute coronary occlusion and 12 without. Five emergency medicine specialists, five emergency medicine residents, and two LLMs, ChatGPT 5.2 and Gemini 3 Pro, interpreted all ECGs under a standardized moderate-risk acute coronary syndrome scenario. The same ECGs were submitted to QoH. Each LLM evaluated the set five times in separate sessions, whereas QoH was queried once because it provides deterministic output. In the primary head-to-head analysis, each interpreter or interpreter group contributed a single decision per ECG. Areas under the curve (AUCs) were compared using the DeLong test, binary metrics using the exact McNemar test, and reliability using Fleiss' kappa.

Results: QoH showed the highest discrimination for OMI (AUC 0.96), followed by ChatGPT (0.81) and Gemini (0.62). QoH also achieved the highest sensitivity (95.8%, missing one of 24 occlusions) and accuracy (86.1%), with significantly higher sensitivity than emergency specialists (p = 0.016). Among physicians, specialists performed best (accuracy 75.0%; sensitivity 66.7%; specificity 91.7%). ChatGPT showed high specificity (91.7%) but low sensitivity (54.2%), whereas Gemini performed least well overall (accuracy 55.6%). The LLMs produced variable interpretations across repeated queries (Fleiss' kappa 0.24-0.49), and Gemini showed marked overconfidence (Brier score 0.40).

Conclusions: In this OMI-focused study, QoH showed the highest discrimination and sensitivity for acute coronary occlusion. General-purpose LLMs showed clinically important limitations and do not currently support autonomous OMI diagnosis. These findings support further evaluation of task-specific models for ECG-based occlusion detection and suggest, at most, an adjunctive, human-supervised role for current general-purpose LLMs.

基于心电图的闭塞性心肌梗死检测:专用深度神经网络与多模态大语言模型和医生的对比——一项回顾性诊断准确性研究
背景:准确的心电图(ECG)解释急性冠状动脉闭塞是一个关键的,时间敏感的任务在急诊护理。该领域正日益从st段抬高型心肌梗死范式转向更广泛的闭塞性心肌梗死(OMI)概念。本研究比较了专用闭塞检测深度神经网络、红心皇后(QoH)、两种通用多模式大语言模型(llm)和急诊医生在基于ecg的OMI检测中的诊断准确性。还对llm的响应一致性和置信度校准进行了评估。方法:本回顾性诊断准确性研究使用36例急诊冠状动脉造影患者的12导联心电图,其中24例经血管造影证实为急性冠状动脉闭塞,12例未确诊。5名急诊医学专家、5名急诊医学住院医师和2名法学硕士(ChatGPT 5.2和Gemini 3 Pro)在标准化的中度急性冠状动脉综合征情景下解释了所有心电图。同样的心电图提交给QoH。每个LLM在单独的会话中对集合进行五次评估,而QoH只查询一次,因为它提供了确定性的输出。在最初的头对头分析中,每个口译员或口译组对每个心电图做出一个决定。曲线下面积(auc)采用DeLong检验,二元指标采用精确McNemar检验,信度采用Fleiss’kappa检验。结果:QoH对OMI的鉴别率最高(AUC为0.96),其次是ChatGPT(0.81)和Gemini(0.62)。QoH也达到了最高的灵敏度(95.8%,24个咬合缺失1个)和准确性(86.1%),灵敏度显著高于急诊专家(p = 0.016)。在内科医生中,专科医生表现最好(准确率75.0%,敏感性66.7%,特异性91.7%)。ChatGPT具有高特异性(91.7%)但低敏感性(54.2%),而Gemini总体表现最差(准确率55.6%)。法学硕士在重复询问中产生了不同的解释(Fleiss的kappa为0.24-0.49),双子座表现出明显的过度自信(Brier得分为0.40)。结论:在这项以omi为中心的研究中,QoH对急性冠状动脉闭塞的鉴别和敏感性最高。通用llm在临床上表现出重要的局限性,目前不支持OMI的自主诊断。这些发现支持进一步评估基于ecg的特定任务模型的遮挡检测,并建议最多为当前的通用llm提供辅助的、人类监督的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Emergency Medicine
BMC Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
178
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Emergency Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all urgent and emergency aspects of medicine, in both practice and basic research. In addition, the journal covers aspects of disaster medicine and medicine in special locations, such as conflict areas and military medicine, together with articles concerning healthcare services in the emergency departments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书