ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Evaluating the Efficacy of Large Language Models in Generating Medical Documentation: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-4o, and Claude.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. 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.
- Dens invaginatus as a diagnostic challenge: evaluating large language models against expert endodontic reasoning.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Establishing a real-time biomarker-to-LLM interface: a modular pipeline for HRV signal acquisition, processing, and physiological state interpretation via generative AI.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have demonstrated transformative potential in health care. They can enhance clinical and academic medicine by facilitating accurate diagnoses, interpreting laboratory results, and automating documentation processes. This study evaluates the efficacy of LLMs in generating surgical operation reports and discharge summaries, focusing on accuracy, efficiency, and quality.
methodsThis study assessed the effectiveness of three leading LLMs-ChatGPT-4.0, ChatGPT-4o, and Claude-using six prompts and analyzing their responses for readability and output quality, validated by plastic surgeons. Readability was measured with the Flesch-Kincaid, Flesch reading ease scores, and Coleman-Liau Index, while reliability was evaluated using the DISCERN score. A paired two-tailed t-test (p<0.05) compared the statistical significance of these metrics and the time taken to generate operation reports and discharge summaries against the authors' results.
resultsTable 3 shows statistically significant differences in readability between ChatGPT-4o and Claude across all metrics, while ChatGPT-4 and Claude differ significantly in the Flesch reading ease and Coleman-Liau indices. Table 6 reveals extremely low p-values across BL, IS, and MM for all models, with Claude consistently outperforming both ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-4o. Additionally, Claude generated documents the fastest, completing tasks in approximately 10 to 14 s. These results suggest that Claude not only excels in readability but also demonstrates superior reliability and speed, making it an efficient choice for practical applications.
conclusionThe study highlights the importance of selecting appropriate LLMs for clinical use. Integrating these LLMs can streamline healthcare documentation, improve efficiency, and enhance patient outcomes through clearer communication and more accurate medical reports. 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 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
40229614What 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.