ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Postoperative complication management: How do large language models measure up to human expertise?
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Managing postoperative complications is an essential part of surgical care and largely depends on the medical team's experience. Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated immense potential in supporting medical professionals. To evaluate the potential of LLMs in surgical patient care, we compared the performance of three state-of-the-art LLMs in managing postoperative complications to that of a panel of medical professionals based on six postsurgical patient cases. Six realistic postoperative patient cases were queried using GPT-3, GPT-4, and Gemini-Advanced and presented to human surgical caregivers. Humans and LLMs provided a triage assessment, an initial suspected diagnosis, and an acute management plan, including initial diagnostic and therapeutic measures. Responses were compared based on medical contextual correctness, coherence, and completeness. In comparison to human caregivers, GPT-3 and GPT-4 possess considerable competencies in correctly identifying postoperative complications (humans: 76.3% vs. GPT-3: 75.0% vs. GPT-4: 96.7%, p = 0.47) as well as triaging patients accordingly (humans: 84.8% vs. GPT-3: 50% vs. GPT-4: 38.3%, p = 0.19). With regard to diagnostic and therapeutic management of postoperative complications, GPT-3 and GPT-4 provided comprehensive management plans. Gemini-Advanced often provided no diagnostic or therapeutic recommendations and censored its outputs. In summary, LLMs can accurately interpret postoperative care scenarios and provide comprehensive management recommendations. These results showcase the improvements in LLMs performance with regard to postoperative surgical use cases and provide evidence for their potential value to support and augment surgical routine care.
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.