Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 20, 2026
Intra-Operative Behavioral Tasks in Awake Humans Undergoing Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery
Published on: January 6, 2011
Retrieval-Augmented Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 Surpass Human Performance on the Nuclear Cardiology Board Preparation
Aditya Killekar1, Aakash Shanbhag2, Robert J H Miller3
1Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Research Center, Departments of Biomedical Sciences, Medicine, and Cardiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Background:
Previous studies evaluated large language model (LLM) performance on the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC) Board Preparation Exam. Without domain-specific context, the best model (GPT-4o) achieved 63.1%, below the estimated 65% passing threshold and the 78% mean score of human fellows-in-training (FITs). Providing textbook context improved GPT-4o to 73.8% on text-only questions, but still fell short of human trainees. Whether next-generation LLMs with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can exceed this gap is unknown.
Methods:
Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 were administered all 168 questions (141 text-only, 27 image-based) from the 2023 ASNC Board Preparation Exam across 5 iterations each, using RAG with a nuclear cardiology textbook, companion atlas, and ASNC clinical guidelines. Claude used local FAISS-based semantic retrieval; GPT-5.5 used Azure's cloud-hosted vector store. Performance was compared to prior LLM results and 13 human FITs.
Results:
Across 5 iterations, Claude Opus 4.7 achieved a mean accuracy of 86.3% ± 1.4% (text 88.8%, image 73.3%). GPT-5.5 achieved 86.7% ± 2.2% (text 88.5%, image 77.0%) but refused a mean of 12.2 questions (7.3%) per iteration due to safety filters. Both models surpassed the human FIT mean (78.0%) and the estimated passing threshold. Compared to GPT-4o without context (63.1%), this represents a 23-percentage-point improvement in 18 months.
Conclusion:
Next-generation LLMs with RAG now surpass average human trainee performance on nuclear cardiology board preparation questions, suggesting significant potential as educational tools and knowledge-reference aids in cardiovascular imaging.
