ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2024
The Potential of Chat-Based Artificial Intelligence Models in Differentiating Between Keloid and Hypertrophic Scars: A Pilot Study.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gender and racial diversity Assumed by text-to-image generators in microsurgery and plastic surgery-related subspecialities.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Article
- Advances in intelligent recognition and diagnosis of skin scar images: concepts, methods, challenges, and future trends.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLasting scars such as keloids and hypertrophic scars adversely affect a patient's quality of life. However, these scars are frequently underdiagnosed because of the complexity of the current diagnostic criteria and classification systems. This study aimed to explore the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT in diagnosing scar conditions and to propose a more accessible and straightforward diagnostic approach.
methodsIn this study, five artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, including ChatGPT-4 (GPT-4), Bing Chat (Precise, Balanced, and Creative modes), and Bard, were evaluated for their ability to interpret clinical scar images using a standardized set of prompts. Thirty mock images of various scar types were analyzed, and each chatbot was queried five times to assess the diagnostic accuracy.
resultsGPT-4 had a significantly higher accuracy rate in diagnosing scars than Bing Chat. The overall accuracy rates of GPT-4 and Bing Chat were 36.0% and 22.0%, respectively (P = 0.027), with GPT-4 showing better performance in terms of specificity for keloids (0.6 vs. 0.006) and hypertrophic scars (0.72 vs. 0.0) than Bing Chat.
conclusionsAlthough currently available LLMs show potential for use in scar diagnostics, the current technology is still under development and is not yet sufficient for clinical application standards, highlighting the need for further advancements in AI for more accurate medical diagnostics. 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
39322838What 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.