Abstract
Background Heart failure requires complex management with increased patient knowledge shown to improve outcomes. The large language model (LLM), Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), may be a useful supplemental resource of information for patients with heart failure.
Methods Responses produced by GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to 107 frequently asked heart failure-related questions were graded by two reviewers board-certified in cardiology, with differences resolved by a third reviewer. The reproducibility and accuracy between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 were compared for questions involving basic knowledge, management, prognosis, procedures, and support.
Results GPT-4 displayed a greater proportion of comprehensive knowledge for the categories of “ basic knowledge” and “ management”, while GPT-3.5 performed better in the “ other” category (prognosis, procedures, and support) (94.1% vs 64.7%). There were 2 total responses (1.9%) graded as “ some correct and incorrect” for GPT-3.5, while no GPT-4 responses received a grade of “ some correct and incorrect” or “ completely incorrect”. Both models provided highly reproducible responses, with GPT-3.5 scoring above 94% in every category and GPT-4 with 100% for all answers.
Conclusions Both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 answered the majority of heart failure-related questions accurately and reliably, with GPT-4 displaying superior performance overall. ChatGPT may lead to better outcomes in patients with heart failure by providing health education.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.