Comparative evaluation of AI-assisted literature search tools for identifying clinically meaningful evidence in cardiology
Clicks: 1
ID: 322844
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #40 of 55 articles by views in European Heart Journal - Digital Health
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Aims The rapid expansion of biomedical literature challenges clinicians’ and researchers’ ability to identify clinically meaningful evidence. We systematically compared five literature search tools, four artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted and one conventional, across clinically relevant cardiology research scenarios, using a blinded expert-validated gold standard to assess their ability to retrieve relevant and key references. Methods and results We evaluated ChatGPT-5, Elicit, Consensus, Scite, and PubMed across four cardiology topics defined by maturity and specificity, with multiple standardized prompts. Three electrophysiology experts independently and blindly rated all retrieved references, defining two gold standards: expert-rated relevance and expert-selected key references. ChatGPT-5 achieved the highest proportion of relevant articles (90% [88–100], p < 0.001) and the highest key-reference overlap (60% [43–68], p < 0.001), whereas Scite performed lowest (20% and 10%, respectively). The tool was the primary determinant of performance (partial R2 = 0.50), whereas prompt formulation had no significant effect. In a pre-specified subanalysis restricted to clinical studies, ChatGPT-5 and human-conducted systematic reviews overlapped by 42% (96% of shared articles highly relevant), with 58% distinct references, indicating complementary AI and human retrieval; ChatGPT-5 produced hallucinated citations when long reference lists were requested for emerging topics, underscoring the need for human verification. Conclusion AI-assisted tools showed heterogeneous performance, ChatGPT-5 performing best in this cardiology setting. These preliminary, context-specific findings support hybrid human-AI strategies in which AI complements rather than replaces transparent database searches such as PubMed; larger-scale, multi-domain studies are needed to confirm and generalize them.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7171508311
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Riccardo Di Febo, Maximiliano Jeanneret Medina, Alexandre Renaud, Maryam Dridi, Valentine Pécriaux, Benoît Lequeux, Stéphane Lafitte, Baptiste Maille, Aymeric Menet |
| Journal | European Heart Journal - Digital Health |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/ehjdh/ztag125
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.