人工智能(ChatGPT)准备在现实生活中评估心电图吗?没有!

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
DIGITAL HEALTH Pub Date : 2025-03-02 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20552076251325279
Volkan Çamkıran, Hüseyin Tunç, Batool Achmar, Tuğçe Simay Ürker, İlhan Kutlu, Akin Torun
{"title":"人工智能(ChatGPT)准备在现实生活中评估心电图吗?没有!","authors":"Volkan Çamkıran, Hüseyin Tunç, Batool Achmar, Tuğçe Simay Ürker, İlhan Kutlu, Akin Torun","doi":"10.1177/20552076251325279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims at evaluating if ChatGPT-based artificial intelligence (AI) models are effective in interpreting electrocardiograms (ECGs) and determine their accuracy as compared to those of cardiologists. The purpose is therefore to explore if ChatGPT can be employed for clinical setting, particularly where there are no available cardiologists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 107 ECG cases classified according to difficulty (simple, intermediate, complex) were analyzed using three AI models (GPT-ECGReader, GPT-ECGAnalyzer, GPT-ECGInterpreter) and compared with the performance of two cardiologists. The statistical analysis was conducted using chi-square and Fisher exact tests using scikit-learn library in Python 3.8.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cardiologists demonstrated superior accuracy (92.52%) compared to ChatGPT-based models (GPT-ECGReader: 57.94%, GPT-ECGInterpreter: 62.62%, GPT-ECGAnalyzer: 62.62%). Statistically significant differences were observed between cardiologists and AI models (<i>p</i> < 0.05). ChatGPT models exhibited enhanced performance with female patients; however, the differences found were not statistically significant. Cardiologists significantly outperformed AI models across all difficulty levels. When it comes to diagnosing patients with arrhythmia (A) and cardiac structural disease ECG patterns, cardiologists gave the best results though there was no statistical difference between them and AI models in diagnosing people with normal (N) ECG patterns.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ChatGPT-based models have potential in ECG interpretation; however, they currently lack adequate reliability beyond oversight from a doctor. Additionally, further studies that would improve the accuracy of these models, especially in intricate diagnoses are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":51333,"journal":{"name":"DIGITAL HEALTH","volume":"11 ","pages":"20552076251325279"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11898233/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial intelligence (ChatGPT) ready to evaluate ECG in real life? Not yet!\",\"authors\":\"Volkan Çamkıran, Hüseyin Tunç, Batool Achmar, Tuğçe Simay Ürker, İlhan Kutlu, Akin Torun\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20552076251325279\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims at evaluating if ChatGPT-based artificial intelligence (AI) models are effective in interpreting electrocardiograms (ECGs) and determine their accuracy as compared to those of cardiologists. The purpose is therefore to explore if ChatGPT can be employed for clinical setting, particularly where there are no available cardiologists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 107 ECG cases classified according to difficulty (simple, intermediate, complex) were analyzed using three AI models (GPT-ECGReader, GPT-ECGAnalyzer, GPT-ECGInterpreter) and compared with the performance of two cardiologists. The statistical analysis was conducted using chi-square and Fisher exact tests using scikit-learn library in Python 3.8.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cardiologists demonstrated superior accuracy (92.52%) compared to ChatGPT-based models (GPT-ECGReader: 57.94%, GPT-ECGInterpreter: 62.62%, GPT-ECGAnalyzer: 62.62%). Statistically significant differences were observed between cardiologists and AI models (<i>p</i> < 0.05). ChatGPT models exhibited enhanced performance with female patients; however, the differences found were not statistically significant. Cardiologists significantly outperformed AI models across all difficulty levels. When it comes to diagnosing patients with arrhythmia (A) and cardiac structural disease ECG patterns, cardiologists gave the best results though there was no statistical difference between them and AI models in diagnosing people with normal (N) ECG patterns.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ChatGPT-based models have potential in ECG interpretation; however, they currently lack adequate reliability beyond oversight from a doctor. Additionally, further studies that would improve the accuracy of these models, especially in intricate diagnoses are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DIGITAL HEALTH\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"20552076251325279\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11898233/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DIGITAL HEALTH\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076251325279\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIGITAL HEALTH","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076251325279","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评估基于chatgpt的人工智能(AI)模型在解释心电图(ECGs)方面是否有效,并确定其与心脏病专家相比的准确性。因此,目的是探索ChatGPT是否可以用于临床设置,特别是在没有可用的心脏病专家。方法:采用3种人工智能模型(GPT-ECGReader、GPT-ECGAnalyzer、GPT-ECGInterpreter)对按难度(简单、中级、复杂)分类的107例心电图进行分析,并与2名心内科医生的表现进行比较。使用Python 3.8中的scikit-learn库使用卡方检验和Fisher精确检验进行统计分析。结果:与基于chatgpt的模型(GPT-ECGReader: 57.94%, GPT-ECGInterpreter: 62.62%, GPT-ECGAnalyzer: 62.62%)相比,心脏病专家表现出更高的准确性(92.52%)。结论:基于chatgpt的模型在ECG解释方面具有潜力;然而,除了医生的监督之外,它们目前缺乏足够的可靠性。此外,需要进一步的研究来提高这些模型的准确性,特别是在复杂的诊断中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Artificial intelligence (ChatGPT) ready to evaluate ECG in real life? Not yet!

Objective: This study aims at evaluating if ChatGPT-based artificial intelligence (AI) models are effective in interpreting electrocardiograms (ECGs) and determine their accuracy as compared to those of cardiologists. The purpose is therefore to explore if ChatGPT can be employed for clinical setting, particularly where there are no available cardiologists.

Methods: A total of 107 ECG cases classified according to difficulty (simple, intermediate, complex) were analyzed using three AI models (GPT-ECGReader, GPT-ECGAnalyzer, GPT-ECGInterpreter) and compared with the performance of two cardiologists. The statistical analysis was conducted using chi-square and Fisher exact tests using scikit-learn library in Python 3.8.

Results: Cardiologists demonstrated superior accuracy (92.52%) compared to ChatGPT-based models (GPT-ECGReader: 57.94%, GPT-ECGInterpreter: 62.62%, GPT-ECGAnalyzer: 62.62%). Statistically significant differences were observed between cardiologists and AI models (p < 0.05). ChatGPT models exhibited enhanced performance with female patients; however, the differences found were not statistically significant. Cardiologists significantly outperformed AI models across all difficulty levels. When it comes to diagnosing patients with arrhythmia (A) and cardiac structural disease ECG patterns, cardiologists gave the best results though there was no statistical difference between them and AI models in diagnosing people with normal (N) ECG patterns.

Conclusions: ChatGPT-based models have potential in ECG interpretation; however, they currently lack adequate reliability beyond oversight from a doctor. Additionally, further studies that would improve the accuracy of these models, especially in intricate diagnoses are needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
DIGITAL HEALTH
DIGITAL HEALTH Multiple-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
302
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信