This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Open AccessArticle
Complementary Error Patterns Between Human Evaluators and GPT-4o in Video-Based Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Skills Assessment: Implications for Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Second Reading
by
Hye Ji Park
Hye Ji Park 1,
Daun Choi
Daun Choi 2 and
Choung Ah Lee
Choung Ah Lee 1,3,*
1
Department of Emergency Medicine, Hallym University Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Hwaseong 18450, Republic of Korea
2
Hallym Dongtan Simulation Center, 160, Samsung 1-ro, Hwaseong 18450, Republic of Korea
3
Research Institute for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Hallym University, Chuncheon 24342, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2026, 15(12), 4436; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15124436 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 16 April 2026
/
Revised: 29 May 2026
/
Accepted: 3 June 2026
/
Published: 8 June 2026
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) skill assessments are susceptible to evaluator subjectivity, cognitive fatigue, and observational limitations. Although recent advances in multimodal artificial intelligence have increased the possibility of automated video-based assessment, its validity for clinical skill evaluation remains insufficiently examined. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we enrolled 130 laypersons who underwent Basic Life Support training and skill testing. Twenty recordings were used for prompt development and 110 recordings were analyzed. Expert evaluators and GPT-4o independently assessed participants’ skills using a 12-item checklist. The manikin sensor data were the reference standard for the four chest compression metrics. Agreement was evaluated using Gwet’s agreement coefficient 1 (AC1) and intraclass correlation coefficient (2,1). Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were compared using McNemar’s test. Results: Procedural items such as confirming cardiac arrest, calling 119, and requesting an automated external defibrillator showed a near-perfect agreement between experts and GPT-4o (AC1 > 0.8). However, the agreement was poor for the compression depth (AC1 = 0.374) and full chest recoil (AC1 = 0.355). Experts demonstrated high sensitivity (77.8–84.3%) but low specificity (24.6–47.8%), whereas GPT-4o showed low sensitivity (35.6–40.6%) but high specificity (69.2–76.1%). Conclusions: GPT-4o cannot serve as a standalone evaluator because of its inherent limitations in inferring three-dimensional spatial information from two-dimensional videos. However, its high agreement on procedural items and complementary error patterns with that of human evaluators on compression metrics suggests its potential as a decision support tool to mitigate expert leniency bias in CPR education.
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Park, H.J.; Choi, D.; Lee, C.A.
Complementary Error Patterns Between Human Evaluators and GPT-4o in Video-Based Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Skills Assessment: Implications for Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Second Reading. J. Clin. Med. 2026, 15, 4436.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15124436
AMA Style
Park HJ, Choi D, Lee CA.
Complementary Error Patterns Between Human Evaluators and GPT-4o in Video-Based Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Skills Assessment: Implications for Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Second Reading. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2026; 15(12):4436.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15124436
Chicago/Turabian Style
Park, Hye Ji, Daun Choi, and Choung Ah Lee.
2026. "Complementary Error Patterns Between Human Evaluators and GPT-4o in Video-Based Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Skills Assessment: Implications for Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Second Reading" Journal of Clinical Medicine 15, no. 12: 4436.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15124436
APA Style
Park, H. J., Choi, D., & Lee, C. A.
(2026). Complementary Error Patterns Between Human Evaluators and GPT-4o in Video-Based Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Skills Assessment: Implications for Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Second Reading. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 15(12), 4436.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15124436
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details
here.
Article Metrics
Article Access Statistics
For more information on the journal statistics, click
here.
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.