ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
The Utility of ChatGPT for Medical Students on Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Rotations.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundSubinternships are a key component of the competitive plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) match. While preparedness is highly valued, there is no standardized method for students to prepare for surgical cases. ChatGPT, a widely used large language model (LLM), has shown promise in medical education, but its reliability in surgical contexts remains unclear. We aim to evaluate ChatGPT's potential to help students prepare for PRS rotations and subinternships by analyzing its responses to common PRS questions.
methodsA dataset of 267 questions was generated across PRS subtopics. Three procedures were selected per subtopic, each with 12 identical questions categorized by type and format. Each prompt began with, "I am a medical student preparing for my PRS rotation," to contextualize responses. GPT-4o responses were scored for accuracy, completeness, usefulness, relevance, and overall quality with a five-point Likert scale. Low-scoring responses were re-queried using OpenA1 o1.
resultsTwenty-one responses about pre-case reading were excluded due to fabricated articles (average score 1.17). Among the included responses, scores were: accuracy 4.12, completeness 3.88, usefulness 3.96, relevance 4.19, and quality 4.00. Lymphatics scored highest, while head and neck were lowest (p=0.03). Educational questions outperformed surgical questions (p<0.0001). No significant difference was found between question formats. Re-queried responses showed improved scores (p = 0.0001).
conclusionChatGPT performed best in lymphatics and providing educational tools, but had limitations in generating literature and procedural questions. The newer o1 version demonstrated significantly improved performance, suggesting that with continued model refinement, LLMs are poised to become increasingly valuable in surgical education. 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
41214323What 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.