Exploring the Unknown: Evaluating ChatGPT's Performance in Uncovering Novel Aspects of Plastic Surgery and Identifying Areas for Future Innovation.

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a powerful tool in various medical fields, including plastic surgery. This study aims to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT, an AI language model, in elucidating historical aspects of plastic surgery and identifying potential avenues for innovation.

methodsA comprehensive analysis of ChatGPT's responses to a diverse range of plastic surgery-related inquiries was performed. The quality of the AI-generated responses was assessed based on their relevance, accuracy, and novelty. Additionally, the study examined the AI's ability to recognize gaps in existing knowledge and propose innovative solutions. ChatGPT's responses were analysed by specialist plastic surgeons with extensive research experience, and quantitatively analysed with a Likert scale.

resultsChatGPT demonstrated a high degree of proficiency in addressing a wide array of plastic surgery-related topics. The AI-generated responses were found to be relevant and accurate in most cases. However, it demonstrated convergent thinking and failed to generate genuinely novel ideas to revolutionize plastic surgery. Instead, it suggested currently popular trends that demonstrate great potential for further advancements. Some of the references presented were also erroneous as they cannot be validated against the existing literature.

conclusionAlthough ChatGPT requires major improvements, this study highlights its potential as an effective tool for uncovering novel aspects of plastic surgery and identifying areas for future innovation. By leveraging the capabilities of AI language models, plastic surgeons may drive advancements in the field. Further studies are needed to cautiously explore the integration of AI-driven insights into clinical practice and to evaluate their impact on patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: 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.