Interpretation of cardiopulmonary exercise test by GPT - promising tool as a first step to identify normal results.

Eyal Kleinhendler, Avital Pinkhasov, Samah Hayek, Avraham Man, Ophir Freund, Tal Moshe Perluk, Evgeni Gershman, Avraham Unterman, Gil Fire, Amir Bar-Shai
{"title":"Interpretation of cardiopulmonary exercise test by GPT - promising tool as a first step to identify normal results.","authors":"Eyal Kleinhendler, Avital Pinkhasov, Samah Hayek, Avraham Man, Ophir Freund, Tal Moshe Perluk, Evgeni Gershman, Avraham Unterman, Gil Fire, Amir Bar-Shai","doi":"10.1080/17476348.2025.2474138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is used in the evaluation of unexplained dyspnea. However, its interpretation requires expertise that is often not available. We aim to evaluate the utility of ChatGPT (GPT) in interpreting CPET results.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study included 150 patients who underwent CPET. Two expert pulmonologists categorized the results as normal or abnormal (cardiovascular, pulmonary, or other exercise limitations), being the gold standard. GPT versions 3.5 (GPT-3.5) and 4 (GPT-4) analyzed the same data using pre-defined structured inputs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GPT-3.5 correctly interpreted 67% of the cases. It achieved a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 98% in identifying normal CPET results. GPT-3.5 had varying results for abnormal CPET tests, depending on the limiting etiology. In contrast, GPT-4 demonstrated improvements in interpreting abnormal tests, with sensitivities of 83% and 92% for respiratory and cardiovascular limitations, respectively. Combining the normal CPET interpretations by both AI models resulted in 91% sensitivity and 98% specificity. Low work rate and peak oxygen consumption were independent predictors for inaccurate interpretations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 succeeded in ruling out abnormal CPET results. This tool could be utilized to differentiate between normal and abnormal results.</p>","PeriodicalId":94007,"journal":{"name":"Expert review of respiratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert review of respiratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17476348.2025.2474138","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is used in the evaluation of unexplained dyspnea. However, its interpretation requires expertise that is often not available. We aim to evaluate the utility of ChatGPT (GPT) in interpreting CPET results.

Research design and methods: This cross-sectional study included 150 patients who underwent CPET. Two expert pulmonologists categorized the results as normal or abnormal (cardiovascular, pulmonary, or other exercise limitations), being the gold standard. GPT versions 3.5 (GPT-3.5) and 4 (GPT-4) analyzed the same data using pre-defined structured inputs.

Results: GPT-3.5 correctly interpreted 67% of the cases. It achieved a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 98% in identifying normal CPET results. GPT-3.5 had varying results for abnormal CPET tests, depending on the limiting etiology. In contrast, GPT-4 demonstrated improvements in interpreting abnormal tests, with sensitivities of 83% and 92% for respiratory and cardiovascular limitations, respectively. Combining the normal CPET interpretations by both AI models resulted in 91% sensitivity and 98% specificity. Low work rate and peak oxygen consumption were independent predictors for inaccurate interpretations.

Conclusions: Both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 succeeded in ruling out abnormal CPET results. This tool could be utilized to differentiate between normal and abnormal results.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Current insights into the clinico-pathologic characteristics of lung cancer in women. Elevated serum tumor-associated antigens in patients with interstitial lung disease: a retrospective study on clinical features and prognosis. Demographic and regional trends in asthma mortality in the United States, 1999-2020. Comparison of effectiveness and safety between baricitinib and tocilizumab in severe COVID-19: a retrospective study. Interpretation of cardiopulmonary exercise test by GPT - promising tool as a first step to identify normal results.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1