ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Reliability and Accuracy of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Providing General Information on Migraine Surgery.
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 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.
- Cross-race vs. same-race collaboration in plastic surgery: AI-driven analysis of research and race-interaction dynamics.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Online Resources for Migraine Surgery: Readability and Patient Understanding.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Numerous publicly available generative artificial intelligence tools have been introduced, aimed at research use or for the general public. The aim of this study was to investigate what information could be obtained by querying 9 of these publicly available software tools regarding the possible outcomes and complications of migraine surgery. Methods: We consulted 9 of the most well-known and widely used generative artificial intelligence tools: ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Elicit, SciSpace, Consensus, PaperPal, Julius, and Mistral AI. Each tool was asked the same question: "Detail the outcomes and complications of migraine surgery." Results: The results we obtained were, on the whole, very satisfactory. All the tools used, in addition to being extremely fast, provided sensible and scientifically reliable answers, albeit with varying degrees of accuracy. The accuracy of the answers provided was found to be directly proportional to the number of scientific references each tool used to generate its response. The tools that provided the most complete and detailed answers were, in order, Consensus, SciSpace, Perplexity, and ChatGPT. Conclusions: In the answers provided by all the software, the universally accepted principles of migraine surgery were accurately listed, both in terms of outcomes and the rate and severity of complications. Regarding outcomes, the high success rate of the procedure was consistently emphasized.
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.