ArticleCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2024
Utility of an Artificial Intelligence Language Model for Post-Operative Patient Instructions Following Facial Trauma.
Article in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 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.
- Combined BTX-A and Collagen Membrane in Benign Parotid Enucleation: A Comparative Cohort Study.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2026Article
- Applications of natural language processing tools in the surgical journey.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Review
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
Abstract
Study Design: Qualitative Descriptive Study. Objective: To evaluate the utility of post-operative instructions (POIs) for facial trauma provided by the language model ChatGPT as compared to those from electronic medical record (EMR) templates and Google search engine. Methods: POIs for four common facial trauma procedures (mandibular fracture, maxillary fracture, nasal fracture, and facial laceration) were generated by ChatGPT, extracted from EMR templates, or obtained from Google search engine. The POIs were evaluated by a panel of surgeons using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT-P). Results: Average PEMAT-P understandability scores across all 3 sources ranged from 55% to 94%. Actionability scores ranged from 33% to 94%, and procedure-specific scores ranged from 50% to 92%. ChatGPT-generated POIs ranged from 82% to 88% for understandability, 60% to 80% for actionability, and 50% to 75% for procedure-specific items. Conclusions: ChatGPT has great potential to be a useful adjunct in providing post-operative instructions for patients undergoing facial trauma procedures. Detailed and patient-specific prompts are necessary to output tailored instructions that are accurate, understandable, and actionable.
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.