ArticleArchives of craniofacial surgery2024
The new frontier: utilizing ChatGPT to expand craniofacial research.
Article in Archives of craniofacial surgery, 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.
- Artificial Intelligence in Non-Surgical Cosmetic Procedures: A Multi-Stakeholder Revolution.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Review
- Exploring the Utility of ChatGPT in Cleft Lip Repair Education.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comment on "The new frontier: utilizing ChatGPT to expand craniofacial research".Archives of craniofacial surgery · 2024Article
- Reply: Comment on "The new frontier: utilizing ChatGPT to expand craniofacial research".Archives of craniofacial surgery · 2024Article
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
backgroundDue to the importance of evidence-based research in plastic surgery, the authors of this study aimed to assess the accuracy of ChatGPT in generating novel systematic review ideas within the field of craniofacial surgery.
methodsChatGPT was prompted to generate 20 novel systematic review ideas for 10 different subcategories within the field of craniofacial surgery. For each topic, the chatbot was told to give 10 "general" and 10 "specific" ideas that were related to the concept. In order to determine the accuracy of ChatGPT, a literature review was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane.
resultsIn total, 200 total systematic review research ideas were generated by ChatGPT. We found that the algorithm had an overall 57.5% accuracy at identifying novel systematic review ideas. ChatGPT was found to be 39% accurate for general topics and 76% accurate for specific topics.
conclusionCraniofacial surgeons should use ChatGPT as a tool. We found that ChatGPT provided more precise answers with specific research questions than with general questions and helped narrow down the search scope, leading to a more relevant and accurate response. Beyond research purposes, ChatGPT can augment patient consultations, improve healthcare equity, and assist in clinical decisionmaking. With rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), it is important for plastic surgeons to consider using AI in their clinical practice to improve patient-centered outcomes.
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.