Login
Search
Search
0 Dates
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
0 Events
CPC 2018
CPC 2019
Curso de Atualização em Medicina Cardiovascular 2019
Reunião Anual Conjunta dos Grupos de Estudo de Cirurgia Cardíaca, Doenças Valvulares e Ecocardiografia da SPC
CPC 2020
CPC 2021
CPC 2022
CPC 2023
CPC 2024
CPC 2025
CPC 2026
0 Topics
A. Basics
B. Imaging
C. Arrhythmias and Device Therapy
D. Heart Failure
E. Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndromes, Acute Cardiac Care
F. Valvular, Myocardial, Pericardial, Pulmonary, Congenital Heart Disease
G. Aortic Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Stroke
H. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery
I. Hypertension
J. Preventive Cardiology
K. Cardiovascular Disease In Special Populations
L. Cardiovascular Pharmacology
M. Cardiovascular Nursing
N. E-Cardiology / Digital Health, Public Health, Health Economics, Research Methodology
O. Basic Science
P. Other
0 Themes
01. History of Cardiology
02. Clinical Skills
03. Imaging
04. Arrhythmias, General
05. Atrial Fibrillation
06. Supraventricular Tachycardia (non-AF)
07. Syncope and Bradycardia
08. Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD)
09. Device Therapy
10. Chronic Heart Failure
11. Acute Heart Failure
12. Coronary Artery Disease (Chronic)
13. Acute Coronary Syndromes
14. Acute Cardiac Care
15. Valvular Heart Disease
16. Infective Endocarditis
17. Myocardial Disease
18. Pericardial Disease
19. Tumors of the Heart
20. Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology
21. Pulmonary Circulation, Pulmonary Embolism, Right Heart Failure
22. Aortic Disease
23. Peripheral Vascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
24. Stroke
25. Interventional Cardiology
26. Cardiovascular Surgery
27. Hypertension
28. Risk Factors and Prevention
29. Rehabilitation and Sports Cardiology
30. Cardiovascular Disease in Special Populations
31. Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy
32. Cardiovascular Nursing
33. e-Cardiology / Digital Health
34. Public Health and Health Economics
35. Research Methodology
36. Basic Science
37. Miscellanea
0 Resources
Abstract
Slides
Vídeo
Report
CLEAR FILTERS
AI vs AI: Performance of two Large Language Models for ECG-based Emergent Cath Lab Activation in Acute Coronary Syndrome
Session:
Sessão de Posters 47 - Dos dados às decisões: a revolução da IA em cardiologia
Speaker:
Miguel Rocha
Congress:
CPC 2026
Topic:
N. E-Cardiology / Digital Health, Public Health, Health Economics, Research Methodology
Theme:
33. e-Cardiology / Digital Health
Subtheme:
33.3 Computer Modeling and Simulation
Session Type:
Posters Eletrónicos
FP Number:
---
Authors:
Miguel Rocha; Helena Moreira; Pedro Palma; Joana Gonçalves; Emanuel Oliveira; Bernardo Cruz; Benedita Couto Viana; Erivaldo Figueiredo; Luana Alves; Tiago Prata Branco; Ana Isabel Pinho; Rui Simões Rodrigues
Abstract
<p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><strong>Background</strong><br /> Generative artificial intelligence (AI) models are increasingly available and used for clinical decision support, but their performance in real-world ECG-based triage of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) remains uncertain.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><strong>Aim</strong><br /> To evaluate and compare the performance of two large language models (LLMs), ChatGPT and Perplexity, for emergent cath lab activation decisions based solely on 12-lead ECGs.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><strong>Methods</strong><br /> We retrospectively analysed patients from a Portuguese hospital with emergent cath lab activation between January 2024 and December 2025 for suspected ACS. Demographic data, risk factors, culprit artery, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and right ventricular function (RVF) were collected. Each ECG was presented, with a standardised prompt, to ChatGPT and Perplexity, and the models were asked to: (i) decide on cath lab activation, (ii) provide an ECG diagnosis (e.g. anterior STEMI), (iii) infer the culprit artery, (iv) estimate LVEF as reduced vs non-reduced (<40% vs ≥40%), and (v) classify RVF. A cardiologist-adjudicated reference defined whether cath lab activation had been appropriate and whether AI outputs were correct. Accuracy was compared using McNemar’s test.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><strong>Results</strong><br /> We included 129 patients. Mean age was 63.5±13.8 years; ≈77% were male. Hypertension was present in 58.9%, dyslipidaemia in 57.4% and 44.2% were smokers. Median LVEF was 45% (IQR 34–55). The clinician’s activation decision was correct in 98.4% of patients. ChatGPT correctly classified cath lab activation in 40.3% and Perplexity in 52.7% of cases (Perplexity vs ChatGPT p=0.027; both p<0.001 vs clinician). ChatGPT recommended activation in 34.1% and Perplexity in 47.3% of ECGs. Despite an indication for activation in 127 patients, ChatGPT failed to activate the cath lab when it should have in 56.6% of cases and Perplexity in 44.2%. Correct ECG diagnosis was achieved in 13.2% by ChatGPT and 21.7% by Perplexity (p=0.054), and culprit artery in 16.3% vs 24.0% (p=0.10), respectively. For reduced vs non reduced LVEF, accuracy was 65.1% (ChatGPT) and 57.4% (Perplexity; p=0.13). RVF was better classified by both LLMs, being 82.2% accuracy for ChatGPT and 75.0% for Perplexity.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><strong>Conclusions</strong><br /> In this real-world cohort of emergent cath lab activations, two accessible general-purpose LLMs showed poor to modest performance for ECG-based triage, with Perplexity outperforming ChatGPT but both substantially inferior to expert clinicians and, most importantly, markedly prone to under-activation. Thus, these LLM AIs should not be used for emergent ACS triage.</span></span></p>
Slides
Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease
Visit our site