ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Evaluating the Insights of ChatGPT, Gemini and Expert Surgeons in Revision Rhinoplasty Consultation.
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
objectivesThis study aims to evaluate and compare the responses of two large language model (LLM) AI chatbots, ChatGPT and Gemini, against those provided by expert surgeons during consultations for revision rhinoplasty. Given the emotional complexities and relatively low satisfaction rates in revision cases, assessing AI's effectiveness in providing empathetic and accurate information is essential. MATERIALS AND
methodsA set of fifteen hypothetical questions reflecting patient concerns were presented to ChatGPT, Gemini, and two expert surgeons. Four academic otolaryngologists rated the responses based on empathy, precision, perfectness, and communication skills using a 5-point Likert scale. The ratings were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni tests to determine statistical significance.
resultsChatGPT achieved the highest mean scores across all categories, outperforming both expert surgeons significantly in empathy, precision, perfectness, and communication skills (p < 0.01). Gemini also outperformed the expert surgeons in these categories. Notably, ChatGPT excelled in perfectness compared to Gemini, while expert surgeon1 demonstrated superior precision. Evaluators showed consistent ratings in precision, perfectness, and communication skills, but significant differences were found in empathy (p < 0.01).
conclusionChatGPT and Gemini showed remarkable performance in consultation for revision rhinoplasty. However, there are known weak points in LLM chatbots; they can play an under-controlled role in facial plastic surgery and the healthcare system. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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
41361149What 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.