ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
Unveiling the Potential of AI in Plastic Surgery Education: A Comparative Study of Leading AI Platforms' Performance on In-training Examinations.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Didactic Education in Plastic Surgery Residency: A National Survey Highlighting Variation in Curriculum Structure and Assessment.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Non-Surgical Cosmetic Procedures: A Multi-Stakeholder Revolution.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Review
- Assessing ChatGPT-4o's Image Generation for Educational Infographics in Plastic Surgery: A Pilot Study.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Input structure-driven instability and convergence in large language model clinical reasoning: a formative study using pediatric residency-level MCQs.Scientific reports · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Within the last few years, artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have sparked fascination for their potential as an educational tool. Although it has been documented that one such chatbot, ChatGPT, is capable of performing at a moderate level on plastic surgery examinations and has the capacity to become a beneficial educational tool, the potential of other chatbots remains unexplored. Methods: To investigate the efficacy of AI chatbots in plastic surgery education, performance on the 2019-2023 Plastic Surgery In-service Training Examination (PSITE) was compared among seven popular AI platforms: ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Google Bard, Google PaLM, Microsoft Bing AI, Claude, and My AI by Snapchat. Answers were evaluated for accuracy and incorrect responses were characterized by question category and error type. Results: ChatGPT-4.0 outperformed the other platforms, reaching accuracy rates up to 79%. On the 2023 PSITE, ChatGPT-4.0 ranked in the 95th percentile of first-year residents; however, relative performance worsened when compared with upper-level residents, with the platform ranking in the 12th percentile of sixth-year residents. The performance among other chatbots was comparable, with their average PSITE score (2019-2023) ranging from 48.6% to 57.0%. Conclusions: Results of our study indicate that ChatGPT-4.0 has potential as an educational tool in the field of plastic surgery; however, given their poor performance on the PSITE, the use of other chatbots should be cautioned against at this time. To our knowledge, this is the first article comparing the performance of multiple AI chatbots within the realm of plastic surgery education.
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.