Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40421151›Full record

ArticleTranslational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer2025

Enhancing patient education in breast surgery: artificial intelligence-powered guidance for mastopexy, augmentation, reduction, and reconstruction.

Gianluca Marcaccini, Pietro Susini, Yi Xie, Roberto Cuomo, Mirco Pozzi, Luca Grimaldi, Warren M Rozen, Ishith Seth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Gianluca MarcacciniUnit of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neuroscience, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8396-095X
Pietro SusiniUnit of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neuroscience, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Yi XieDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Peninsula Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Roberto CuomoUnit of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neuroscience, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Mirco PozziUnit of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neuroscience, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Luca GrimaldiUnit of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neuroscience, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Warren M RozenDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Peninsula Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Ishith SethDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Peninsula Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT have revolutionised patient education by offering accessible, reasonable, and empathetic guidance. This study evaluates ChatGPT's role in supporting patient inquiries regarding four key plastic surgery procedures: mastopexy, breast augmentation, breast reduction, and breast reconstruction. The study highlights its potential as a supplemental tool in patient education by assessing its performance across relevance, accuracy, clarity, and empathy criteria. Methods: The study collected frequently asked questions from patients about the selected procedures during pre- and post-operative consultations. Responses were generated by ChatGPT and evaluated by a panel of Plastic Surgery experts. Scores from 1 to 5 were assigned to four criteria: relevance, accuracy, clarity, and empathy. Statistical analyses, including means, standard deviations, and Kruskal-Wallis tests, were conducted to evaluate differences in the scores assigned to responses across criteria and procedures. Results: ChatGPT demonstrated high performance across all evaluation criteria, with clarity emerging as the strongest attribute, reflecting the model's ability to simplify complex medical concepts effectively. Accuracy, while slightly lower, remained reliable, aligning well with medical standards. Among the procedures, breast reconstruction appeared to perform particularly well, followed closely by mastopexy and breast augmentation. The analysis revealed no significant differences across the criteria, indicating consistent performance. Conclusions: ChatGPT demonstrated remarkable capability in addressing patient concerns and offering clear, empathetic, and relevant responses. However, limitations include the lack of personalised advice and potential patient misinterpretations, emphasising the need for professional oversight. ChatGPT is a valuable adjunct to professional medical consultations, enhancing patient education and engagement. Future research should focus on improving personalisation and evaluating its real-world application in clinical settings.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (AI)breast surgeryChatGPTcommunicationplastic surgery

Identifiers

PMID40421151
PMCPMC12104957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.