Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 31, 2026

Augmenting Large Language Models via Vector Embeddings to Improve Domain-Specific Responsiveness
Published on: December 6, 2024
Large language models approach clinician performance in ESC cardiovascular risk stratification: a vignette-based
José Ferreira Santos1,2, Regina de Brito Duarte3,4, Inês Mota5
1Católica Medical School, Sintra Campus, Estrada OctávioPato, 2635-631 Rio de Mouro, Lisboa, Portugal.
Aims:
Guideline-based cardiovascular risk stratification requires three distinct competencies: extracting risk factor data from clinical text, computing a validated risk score, and applying guideline-defined thresholds to assign a final risk category. We evaluated contemporary large language models (LLMs) on each of these tasks within the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) SCORE2 framework and compared LLM performance against a pooled individual clinician benchmark to contextualize findings against real-world human reproducibility.
Methods And Results:
Eleven LLMs were evaluated using 30 simulated outpatient clinical vignettes presented in both Portuguese and English. For each vignette, models extracted cardiovascular risk factors, determined SCORE2 applicability, generated 10-year risk estimates where appropriate, and assigned a final three-class ESC risk category. A committee of three cardiologists established the reference standard; eight independent clinicians provided an individual-level human benchmark. Traditional risk-factor extraction was near-perfect across all models (micro-F1 0.97-0.99). Agreement with expert-assigned final risk categories was moderate and variable (best: GPT-4o, quadratic-weighted κw 0.69, 95% CI 0.44-0.84), with 10 of 11 models more often underestimating than overestimating risk. To isolate the source of classification error, post hoc deterministic recalculation of SCORE2 was performed using model-extracted variables in eligible vignettes; this markedly improved agreement across all models (κw 0.85-0.90), demonstrating that extraction was largely intact and computational execution was the primary failure mode. The pooled individual clinician benchmark showed moderate agreement with the reference standard (κw 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.67), indicating that the best-performing LLMs matched or exceeded the average individual clinician on this guideline-based task. Performance was broadly consistent across Portuguese and English.
Conclusion:
Contemporary LLMs reliably extract cardiovascular risk information from clinical text, and the best-performing systems achieved agreement within the range of average individual clinicians on this structured task. Their principal limitation lies in downstream computation and rule application.