MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407766726 · doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2025.02.012

A Primer on Large Language Models (LLMs) and ChatGPT for Cardiovascular Healthcare Professionals

2025· review· en· W4407766726 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Muneeb Ahmed, Jeffrey Lam, Alexander K. Chow, Chi-Ming Chow

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth professionalsHealth carePrimer (cosmetics)MedicineBusinessEconomicsEconomic growthChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generative artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, is transforming healthcare by offering novel ways to synthesize and communicate medical knowledge. This development is especially relevant in cardiology, as patient education, clinical decision-making, and administrative workflows play pivotal roles in this area. ChatGPT, originally built on GPT-3 and refined into GPT-4, can simplify complex cardiology literature, translate technical explanations into plain language, and address questions across different linguistic backgrounds. Studies show that although ChatGPT demonstrates considerable promise in performing text-based tasks-ranging from passing portions of the European Exam in Core Cardiology to creating patient-friendly educational materials-its inability to interpret images remains a major limitation. Meanwhile, concerns around false information, data bias, and ethical issues highlight the need for careful oversight. Future directions include integrating LLMs with computer-vision modules for image-based diagnostics and combining unstructured patient data to improve risk prediction and phenotyping. Social-media research suggests that chatbots sometimes provide more-empathetic responses than do physicians, underscoring both their potential advantages and complexities. LLM-based tools can also generate letters for insurance prior authorizations or appeals, helping reduce administrative burden. New multimodal approaches, such as ChatGPT Vision, have the potential to enable direct image processing, although clinical validation of this function is yet to be established. The judicious integration of ChatGPT and other LLMs into cardiology requires ongoing validation, robust regulatory frameworks, and strong ethical guidelines to ensure patient privacy, avoid misinformation, and promote equitable healthcare delivery. This review aims to provide a primer on LLMs for cardiovascular professionals, summarizing key applications, current limitations, and prospects in this rapidly evolving field of digital health.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.013
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0060.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.015

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.263
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCJC Open→Same topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education→French-language works237,207→