Skip to content

Smartphone AI Assistance for Prehospital ECG Interpretation

AI & Prehospital ECG Analysis: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Smartphone Large Language Model for Occlusion Myocardial Infarction Detection by Prehospital Providers

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07810686
Acronym
ECG-IA
Enrollment
144
Registered
2026-09-09
Start date
2026-09-02
Completion date
2026-11-30
Last updated
2026-09-09

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Acute Coronary Syndromes, Diagnostic Errors, Myocardial Infarction (MI), Non-ST Elevated Myocardial Infarction, ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Keywords

artificial intelligence, large language model, GPT-4o, electrocardiography, occlusion myocardial infarction, OMI, prehospital care, paramedics, emergency medical services, clinical decision support, diagnostic accuracy, clinical vignettes, Switzerland, French-speaking Switzerland, prehospital providers

Brief summary

Prehospital providers interpret 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) under time pressure and without immediate expert support. Missed acute coronary occlusion - occlusion myocardial infarction (OMI) - delays reperfusion, while false positive interpretations trigger unnecessary catheterization laboratory activations. Multimodal large language models (LLMs) available on any smartphone can now analyze a photographed ECG, and prehospital providers have begun using them spontaneously. No randomized trial has evaluated whether this practice improves diagnostic performance. This randomized controlled trial compares the diagnostic performance of prehospital providers interpreting ECG clinical vignettes with and without mandatory assistance from a single, version-locked smartphone large language model. Participants - paramedics, emergency medical technicians, nurses and physicians practicing in prehospital care in French-speaking Switzerland - are randomized 1:1 on a dedicated digital platform and answer 14 clinical vignettes presented in individually randomized order. Each vignette is built around a real, anonymized 12-lead ECG obtained during routine clinical care. The primary outcome is the proportion of vignettes for which the participant correctly identifies the presence or absence of an OMI. Secondary outcomes are sensitivity, specificity, and the accuracy of the prehospital priority decision level.

Detailed description

Design and setting. Two-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial conducted on a dedicated digital platform. Phase 1 takes place during a single in-person session at the Swiss French-speaking prehospital clinical research conference (Morat, Switzerland, 2 September 2026). Phase 2 extends recruitment to prehospital emergency services across French-speaking Switzerland (September to November 2026) using an identical standardized protocol. Randomization. Individual 1:1 allocation performed automatically by the platform using permuted blocks of variable size (4 to 6), without stratification, after the demographic questionnaire and before the first vignette. Allocation cannot be changed once assigned. The presentation order of the 14 vignettes is independently randomized for each participant, which neutralizes position effects and prevents copying between neighbouring participants. Intervention. Participants allocated to the intervention arm must consult the study-imposed large language model for every vignette before submitting their answer; the platform locks the submit button until use of the tool is confirmed. A single model (OpenAI GPT-4o) in an API version locked for the entire study is used by all participants, with a standardized, non-modifiable prompt identical for every participant and every vignette. Participants cannot add text, ask follow-up questions, or provide additional clinical context. Exposure to the tool is mandatory, but adherence to its interpretation is not: participants remain free to base their final answer on their own clinical reasoning. Control participants interpret the same ECGs unaided, with smartphones turned face down and out of reach. Reference standard. For each vignette, the expected answers were defined a priori by the study cardiologist and locked, with any subsequent modification time-stamped in the platform audit log. The reference standard is the answer expected of a prehospital provider at the point of care, anchored on coronary angiography wherever angiography is discriminant. For non-ischaemic mimics, the expected answer depends on whether the acute presentation allows the condition to be distinguished from a coronary occlusion: it does not for the Takotsubo case included in the study, whose expected answer is therefore "yes", whereas acute pericarditis, being usually recognizable, has an expected answer of "no". This pre-specified departure from a purely angiographic standard is reported as such, and the primary analysis is repeated in a sensitivity analysis in which all mimics are classified as non-OMI. Blinding. Participants and investigators cannot be masked. The statistician conducting the primary analysis receives coded group labels only, and the allocation key is released after database lock and approval of the statistical analysis plan. Statistical analysis. Mixed-effects logistic regression with correct OMI identification at vignette level as the dependent variable, arm as the main fixed effect, grouped ECG category as a fixed covariate, and random intercepts for participant and for vignette. Intention-to-treat, alpha 0.05 two-sided. The target is 130 evaluable participants (65 per arm), giving 80% power to detect an absolute increase from 0.65 to 0.80 with an intraclass correlation up to approximately 0.43. Allowing for approximately 10% of sessions to be abandoned before completion, planned enrollment is 144 (72 per arm). ECG material. All tracings originate from routine clinical care at the Geneva University Hospitals, were selected by a cardiologist to cover predefined electrocardiographic categories, and were anonymized at source before transmission to the research team. No patient is enrolled, followed or contacted, and the research team holds no key allowing re-identification. Pilot. A technical pilot involving a small number of prehospital providers was conducted before the study start date to test the platform. Pilot sessions took place outside the standardized study conditions and are identified in the database by a dedicated centre code; their data are excluded from all analyses, as pre-specified in the protocol.

Interventions

DIAGNOSTIC_TESTSmartphone large language model assistance (GPT-4o, version-locked)

The platform transmits the ECG image to a single large language model (OpenAI GPT-4o, API snapshot gpt-4o-2024-08-06), locked for the entire study, together with a standardised prompt identical for all participants and all vignettes: "I am on an urgent prehospital call with a patient who presents this ECG. Analyse it and tell me what you think." Participants cannot modify the prompt, ask follow-up questions or provide additional clinical context. The model version and system fingerprint returned by the API are recorded for every call. The model's interpretation is displayed within the vignette. Use of the tool is mandatory; adherence to its interpretation is not.

Sponsors

École Supérieure de Soins Ambulanciers - College of Higher Education in Prehospital Care
Lead SponsorOTHER
University Hospital, Geneva
CollaboratorOTHER
Swissrescue.ch, Website for Prehospital Healthcare Providers, Les Pontins, Switzerland
CollaboratorUNKNOWN

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Masking description

Participants and investigators cannot be masked to allocation, since participants in the intervention arm knowingly use the AI tool. The statistician conducting the primary analysis is masked: groups are coded "Group 1" and "Group 2", and the allocation key is held solely by the principal investigator and released only after database lock and approval of the statistical analysis plan.

Intervention model description

Two parallel groups of prehospital providers, randomized 1:1 at the individual level. Each participant completes a single session comprising 14 ECG clinical vignettes presented in an individually randomized order. The control group interprets the ECGs unaided; the intervention group must consult a study-imposed smartphone large language model for every vignette before submitting an answer.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Prehospital care provider practising in French-speaking Switzerland * Any level of training: emergency medical technician, paramedic (ES), nurse (ES/HES) in prehospital emergency care, or prehospital emergency physician * Electronic informed consent signed before randomization

Exclusion criteria

* Cardiologist * Any person not practising in prehospital care * Insufficient command of written French to answer the vignettes reliably * Refusal to participate or withdrawal of consent

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Proportion of vignettes with correct identification of occlusion myocardial infarction (OMI) statusSingle study session, approximately 90 minutes; 14 vignettes per participantFor each of the 14 vignettes, the participant answers a binary question: "At this stage of care, is an OMI (acute coronary occlusion) likely? Yes / No". Responses are scored against a reference standard defined a priori, vignette by vignette, by the study cardiologist and locked before data collection. This reference standard is the answer expected of a prehospital provider at the point of care, anchored on coronary angiography wherever angiography is discriminant. For non-ischaemic mimics the expected answer depends on whether the acute presentation allows the condition to be distinguished from a coronary occlusion: it does not for the Takotsubo case (expected answer "yes"), whereas acute pericarditis is usually recognisable (expected answer "no"). This pre-specified departure from a purely angiographic standard is reported as such, and the analysis is repeated in a sensitivity analysis classifying all mimics as non-OMI. The outcome is the proportion of correctly classified vignettes

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Sensitivity of OMI detectionSingle study session, approximately 90 minutesProportion of correctly identified OMI among vignettes whose expected answer is "yes", compared between arms. Analysed by mixed-effects logistic regression restricted to these vignettes, with arm as fixed effect and a random intercept per participant.
Specificity of OMI detectionSingle study session, approximately 90 minutesProportion of correctly identified non-OMI among vignettes whose expected answer is "no" (non-occlusive ischaemia, indeterminate ischaemia, recognisable non-ischaemic mimics, normal or non-specific ECGs), compared between arms. Same modelling approach as for sensitivity.
Accuracy of the prehospital priority decision levelSingle study session, approximately 90 minutesProportion of vignettes for which the participant selects the correct prehospital priority decision level, on a pre-specified five-level scale ranging from high-risk acute coronary syndrome with activation of the STEMI pathway to clearly non-cardiac symptoms. The expected level is defined a priori for each vignette and locked before data collection.

Countries

Switzerland

Contacts

CONTACTLaurent Bourgeois
laurent.bourgeois@edu.ge.ch+41 22 388 34 04

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Sep 10, 2026