Large language models to develop evidence-based strategies for primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention
Open accessAbstract
Aims: Cardiovascular diseases are the leading global cause of mortality, with ischaemic heart disease contributing significantly to the burden. Primary and secondary prevention strategies are essential to reducing the incidence and recurrence of acute myocardial infarction. Healthcare professionals are no longer the sole source of health education; the Internet, including tools powered by artificial intelligence, is also widely utilized. This study evaluates the accuracy and the readability of large language model (LLM)-generated information on cardiovascular primary and secondary prevention. Methods and results: An observational study assessed LLM’s responses to two tailored questions about acute myocardial infarction risk prevention. The LLM used was ChatGPT (4o version). Expert cardiologists evaluated the accuracy of each response using a Likert scale, while readability was assessed with the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES). ChatGPT-4o provided comprehensive and accurate responses for 15 out of 20 (75%) of the items. Readability scores were low, with median FRES indicating that both primary and secondary prevention content were difficult to understand. Specialized clinical topics exhibited lower accuracy and readability compared to the other topics. Conclusion: The current study demonstrated that ChatGPT-4o provided accurate information on primary and secondary prevention, although its readability was assessed as difficult. However, clinical oversight still remains critical to bridge gaps in accuracy and readability and ensure optimal patient outcomes.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Lorenzoni et al. employed ChatGPT-4o to generate primary and secondary prevention information for myocardial infarction.
“For cardiovascular applications, Lorenzoni et al. [138] employed ChatGPT-4o to generate primary and secondary prevention information for myocardial infarction, with cardiology experts evaluating accuracy and readability.”
From Artificial intelligence-powered prediction of diabetic complications: from clinical data to molecular omics (2026) · cites this paper as [138]
The Methods state that the authors asked ChatGPT-4o for primary and secondary prevention information related to acute myocardial infarction, and that expert cardiologists evaluated response accuracy. The Methods also state that readability was calculated with a web-based Flesch Reading Ease Score tool; the paper does not say cardiology experts evaluated readability, as the full citing sentence implies. No page numbers are provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredReadability of ChatGPT-4o outputs was limited for highly specialized clinical topics.
“The model provided accurate and comprehensive answers for 75% of items, though readability was limited for highly specialized clinical topics, underscoring the need for professional oversight and validation in clinical deployment.”
From Artificial intelligence-powered prediction of diabetic complications: from clinical data to molecular omics (2026) · cites this paper as [138]
ChatGPT-4o provided accurate and comprehensive answers for 75% of items on primary and secondary prevention information for myocardial infarction.
“The model provided accurate and comprehensive answers for 75% of items, though readability was limited for highly specialized clinical topics, underscoring the need for professional oversight and validation in clinical deployment.”
From Artificial intelligence-powered prediction of diabetic complications: from clinical data to molecular omics (2026) · cites this paper as [138]
Professional oversight and validation are needed in clinical deployment of LLMs for cardiovascular prevention information.
“The model provided accurate and comprehensive answers for 75% of items, though readability was limited for highly specialized clinical topics, underscoring the need for professional oversight and validation in clinical deployment.”
From Artificial intelligence-powered prediction of diabetic complications: from clinical data to molecular omics (2026) · cites this paper as [138]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- [1]Murray CJL. The global burden of disease study at 30 years. Nat Med 2022; 28: 2019– 2026. 36216939
- [2]Mesko B. The ChatGPT (generative artificial intelligence) revolution has made artificial intelligence approachable for medical professionals. J Med Internet Res 2023; 25: e48392. 37347508 PMC10337400
- [3]Dalakoti M, Wong S, Lee W, Lee J, Yang H, Loong S, et al Incorporating AI into cardiovascular diseases prevention—insights from Singapore. Lancet Reg Health–Western Pacific 2024; 48: 101102. PMC11154196 38855631
- [4]Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 1948; 32: 221– 233. 18867058
- [5]Freyer O, Wiest IC, Kather JN, Gilbert S. A future role for health applications of large language models depends on regulators enforcing safety standards. Lancet Digit Health 2024; 6: e662– e672. 39179311
- [6]Milford SR. Accuracy is inaccurate: why a focus on diagnostic accuracy for medical chatbot AIs will not lead to improved health outcomes. Bioethics 2024; 39: 163– 169. 39474916 PMC11754992
- [7]Geneş M, Çelik M. Assessment of ChatGPT’s compliance with ESC-acute coronary syndrome management guidelines at 30-day intervals. Life 2024; 14: 1235. 39459535 PMC11508737
- [8]Gurbuz DC, Varis E. Is ChatGPT knowledgeable of acute coronary syndromes and pertinent European Society of Cardiology Guidelines? Minerva Cardiol Angiol 2024; 72: 299– 303. 38391252
- [9]Anaya F, Prasad R, Bashour M, Yaghmour R, Alameh A, Blakumaran K. Evaluating ChatGPT platform in delivering heart failure educational material: a comparison with the leading national cardiology institutes. Curr Probl Cardiol 2024; 49: 102797. 39159709
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Xie, X., Wu, C., Huang, Z., Zhou, Y., Huang, J., Dao, F., Yan, D., Deng, K., Lyu, H., Ma, C., et al. (2026) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbag083 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“For cardiovascular applications, Lorenzoni et al. [138] employed ChatGPT-4o to generate primary and secondary prevention information for myocardial infarction, with cardiology experts evaluating accuracy and readability.”
- Authors
- Lorenzoni, G., Zanotto, C., Sordo, A., Cipriani, A., Perazzolo Marra, M., Tona, F., Gasparini, D., & Gregori, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Padua (IT)
- Cardiology Unit, Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padova , Padova ,
- Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padova , Padova ,
- Venue
- European Heart Journal - Digital Health
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2025-08-14
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1069-1075
- ISSN
- 2634-3916 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12450516
- OpenAlex
- W4413335381
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- FWCI
- 0.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- European Heart Journal - Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Keywords
- large language models, ChatGPT, cardiovascular disease prevention, primary prevention, secondary prevention, acute myocardial infarction, ischemic heart disease, health information accuracy, readability, Flesch Reading Ease Score
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review