ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2023
Evaluation of the Artificial Intelligence Chatbot on Breast Reconstruction and Its Efficacy in Surgical Research: A Case Study.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The Rise of Intelligent Plastic Surgery: A 10-Year Bibliometric Journey Through AI Applications, Challenges, and Transformative Potential.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Exploring the Balance Between Artificial Intelligence and Human Expertise in Shaping Breast Reconstruction Outcomes: A Comparative Reflection Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Dermatology "AI Babylon": Cross-Language Evaluation of AI-Crafted Dermatology Descriptions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Assessment of ChatGPT-5 as an Artificial Intelligence Tool for Exploring Emerging Dimensions of Clinical Simulation: A Proof-of-concept Study.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Novel Breast Reconstruction Generative Pretrained Transformer Promotes Decisional Confidence and Clinical Efficiency.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Assessing the Accuracy and Readability of Large Language Model Guidance for Patients on Breast Cancer Surgery Preparation and Recovery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- ChatGPT, Google, or PINK? Who Provides the Most Reliable Information on Side Effects of Systemic Therapy for Early Breast Cancer?Clinics and practice · 2024Article
- A framework for human evaluation of large language models in healthcare derived from literature review.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Enhancing Hand Fracture Care: A Prospective Study of Artificial Intelligence Application With ChatGPT.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2024Article
- Article
- Integrating AI in Lipedema Management: Assessing the Efficacy of GPT-4 as a Consultation Assistant.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Addressing 6 challenges in generative AI for digital health: A scoping review.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Senology - Where Do We Stand and What Are the Future Horizons?European journal of breast health · 2024Article
- The Application of ChatGPT in Medicine: A Scoping Review and Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Can AI Think Like a Plastic Surgeon? Evaluating GPT-4's Clinical Judgment in Reconstructive Procedures of the Upper Extremity.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- ChatGPT-4: Transforming Medical Education and Addressing Clinical Exposure Challenges in the Post-pandemic Era.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Advancement of Breast Surgery and Implications for Breast Reconstruction: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Comparing the Efficacy of Large Language Models ChatGPT, BARD, and Bing AI in Providing Information on Rhinoplasty: An Observational Study.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChatGPT is an open-source artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot that uses deep learning to produce human-like text dialog. Its potential applications in the scientific community are vast; however, its efficacy on performing comprehensive literature searches, data analysis and report writing in aesthetic plastic surgery topics remains unknown. This study aims to evaluate both the accuracy and comprehensiveness of ChatGPT's responses to assess its suitability for use in aesthetic plastic surgery research.
methodsSix questions were prompted to ChatGPT on post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. First two questions focused on the current evidence and options for breast reconstruction post-mastectomy, and remaining four questions focused specifically on autologous breast reconstruction. Using the Likert framework, the responses provided by ChatGPT were qualitatively assessed for accuracy and information content by two specialist plastic surgeons with extensive experience in the field.
resultsChatGPT provided relevant, accurate information; however, it lacked depth. It could provide no more than a superficial overview in response to more esoteric questions and generated incorrect references. It created non-existent references, cited wrong journal and date, which poses a significant challenge in maintaining academic integrity and caution of its use in academia.
conclusionWhile ChatGPT demonstrated proficiency in summarizing existing knowledge, it created fictitious references which poses a significant concern of its use in academia and healthcare. Caution should be exercised in interpreting its responses in the aesthetic plastic surgical field and should only be used for such with sufficient oversight. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.