ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Evaluating Artificial Intelligence's Role in Developing Research Questions in Head and Neck Reconstruction.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) large language models are an emerging technology, with ChatGPT and Gemini being 2 well-known examples. The current literature discusses clinical applications and limitations of AI, but its role in research has not yet been extensively evaluated. This study aimed to assess the role of ChatGPT and Gemini in developing novel and clinically relevant research ideas (RIs) for systematic reviews (SRs) in head and neck reconstruction. ChatGPT and Gemini were prompted to provide 10 novel and clinically relevant RIs for SRs in the following domains: head and neck reconstruction in general, microsurgery, and complications in reconstructive head and neck procedures. A comprehensive search was then performed for SRs in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase to determine the novelty of the RIs generated. A total of 60 RIs were generated, with half created by ChatGPT and the other half by Gemini. Overall, 3613 entries were found through the literature search. After deduplication and screening, a total of 50 studies that partially addressed the AI-generated RIs were identified and were included in the present review. Out of the 60 AI-generated RIs, 42 had not been previously studied and were therefore considered novel. No statistically significant differences were found between the outputs generated by Gemini and ChatGPT. Both ChatGPT and Gemini were able to effectively generate novel and clinically relevant RIs for SRs, although their suggestions were generally broad. This study demonstrated that AI could potentially aid in the process of conducting novel SRs.
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.