Abstract 4357657: Comparative Evaluation of ChatGPT and DougallGPT on Interventional Cardiology Subspecialty Exam Content

S Saumya Nanda (Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, United States) P Prabal K C (Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, United States) P pyae hein kyaw (Maimonides Medical Center, brooklyn, NY, New York, United States) A Ahmad Al Shihabi (Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, United States) T Tharun Shyam (Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, United States) P Partha Sardar (Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, United States) S Saurav Chatterjee

Abstract

Background: Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and DougallGPT have shown growing potential in medical education. However, there are limited studies evaluating their performance in highly specialized domains such as interventional cardiology. In this study, we assessed and compared the capabilities of ChatGPT and DougallGPT using questions from the CathSAP (Catheterization Self-Assessment Program), a widely used resource among interventional cardiology fellows preparing for interventional cardiology board examinations. Methods: CathSAP contains 460 questions, including 357 text-based questions. Each LLM (ChatGPT [version 4.0] and DougallGPT) completed two sequential attempts on the text-based questions, allowing for assessment of initial performance and improvement after a ‘teaching’ intervention. The ‘teaching’ intervention involved providing the LLM with contextually relevant textual information from the 'Commentary' section of the corresponding CathSAP question. Subsequently, the statistical significance of differences in LLM response accuracy before and after exposure to relevant text was assessed using the chi-square test. Results: In the initial attempt, ChatGPT answered 78.4% of text questions correctly, compared to DougallGPT, which answered 76.47% of the questions correctly with no significant statistical difference overall (p=0.531) or within each section. DougallGPT showed a significantly greater improvement after ‘teaching’, achieving 95.8% correct compared to 89.1% for ChatGPT (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Both ChatGPT and DougallGPT showed substantial performance gains after ‘teaching’ on interventional cardiology text-based questions. While ChatGPT demonstrated a strong baseline performance, DougallGPT showed significantly higher accuracy after ‘teaching’, suggesting that domain-specific optimization may enhance the educational utility of LLMs in interventional cardiology. DougallGPT’s marked improvement following the teaching intervention suggests it may be particularly well-suited to incorporate complex, context-rich educational material. These findings highlight the potential for tailored LLMs to serve as effective adjunctive tools in subspecialty training and self-assessment. Future research should explore their integration into curriculum design and their ability to adapt to evolving clinical guidelines.

Article Details

Journal Circulation
Volume / Issue Vol. 152, Issue Suppl_3
Published November 04, 2025
ISSN 0009-7322
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Circulation

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0009-7322 Health Sciences

Authors (7)

S

Saumya Nanda

Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, United States

P

Prabal K C

Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, United States

P

pyae hein kyaw

Maimonides Medical Center, brooklyn, NY, New York, United States

A

Ahmad Al Shihabi

Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, United States

T

Tharun Shyam

Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, United States

P

Partha Sardar

Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, United States

S

Saurav Chatterjee