Cited by 12Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence Applications

Harnessing the Power of ChatGPT in Cardiovascular Medicine: Innovations, Challenges, and Future Directions

Open access
Leon, Marc, Ruaengsri, Chawannuch, Pelletier, Glenn, Bethencourt, Daniel, Shibata, Masafumi, Flores, Manuel Quiroz, Shudo, Yasuhiro·2024·Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract

Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally, posing significant challenges to public health. The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly with large language models such as ChatGPT, has introduced transformative possibilities in cardiovascular medicine. This review examines ChatGPT’s broad applications in enhancing clinical decision-making—covering symptom analysis, risk assessment, and differential diagnosis; advancing medical education for both healthcare professionals and patients; and supporting research and academic communication. Key challenges associated with ChatGPT, including potential inaccuracies, ethical considerations, data privacy concerns, and inherent biases, are discussed. Future directions emphasize improving training data quality, developing specialized models, refining AI technology, and establishing regulatory frameworks to enhance ChatGPT’s clinical utility and mitigate associated risks. As cardiovascular medicine embraces AI, ChatGPT stands out as a powerful tool with substantial potential to improve therapeutic outcomes, elevate care quality, and advance research innovation. Fully understanding and harnessing this potential is essential for the future of cardiovascular health.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/jcm13216543

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • ChatGPT in this study achieved a relatively low false negative fraction.

    “Compared to previous studies, ChatGPT in our study achieve the relatively low FNF [16, 29].”

    From Artificial intelligence for the science of evidence synthesis: how good are AI-powered tools for automatic literature screening? (2025) · cites this paper as [29]

    Section 5 (page not available) reports low false-negative counts and 95% sensitivity for ChatGPT in a previous abstract-screening study. It does not report the citing authors’ study or compare its false-negative fraction with that earlier result, so it cannot establish the claimed relative difference. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [16]Wang G. Yang G. Du Z. Fan L. Li X. ClinicalGPT: Large Language Models Finetuned with Diverse Medical Data and Comprehensive Evaluation arXiv 2023 2306.09968

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leon, M., Ruaengsri, C., Pelletier, G., Bethencourt, D., Shibata, M., Flores, M. Q., & Shudo, Y.
Affiliations
  • Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Falk CVRB, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Shudo, Yasuhiro
Venue
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-10-31
Volume
13
Issue
21
Pages
6543
ISSN
2077-0383 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4403978797
Cited by
12
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7
FWCI
0.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Cardiovascular Health Innovation Fund (2024)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, clinical decision support, cardiovascular risk assessment, differential diagnosis, medical education, AI-generated research, data privacy, algorithmic bias, AI regulation, training data quality

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