Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41631018›Full record

ArticleJPRAS open2026

Artificial intelligence as a surgical advisor before a DIEP breast reconstruction. A blinded comparative study of three large language models.

Reza Tabrisi, Johann Zdolsek, Nathalie Mobargha, Stina Rittri, Åsa Edsander-Nord, Ann-Charlott Docherty Skogh, Oriana Haran, Mattias Lidén, Karin Säljö, Tava Barivan and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JPRAS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Reza TabrisiDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden.
Johann ZdolsekDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden.
Nathalie MobarghaDepartment of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, 17176 Stockholm, Sweden.
Stina RittriDepartment of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, 17176 Stockholm, Sweden.
Åsa Edsander-NordDepartment of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, 17176 Stockholm, Sweden.
Ann-Charlott Docherty SkoghDepartment of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, 17176 Stockholm, Sweden.
Oriana HaranDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, UT San Antonio, TX, USA.
Mattias LidénDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.
Karin SäljöDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.
Tava BarivanSchool of Medical Sciences, (Faculty of Medicine and Health), Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Sebastian HolmDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in clinical communication, but their accuracy and readability in patient education remain unclear. This study compared three LLMs for preoperative counseling before a DIEP breast reconstruction. Methods: A total of 40 frequently asked preoperative questions regarding DIEP breast reconstruction were collected and categorized using the BREAST-Q framework. These were submitted in English to three LLMs: ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot (anonymized as Model A-C). Each question was submitted to all three models and the responses were anonymized. An expert panel of eight board-certified plastic surgeons from both Europe and USA. Ratings were made of a 5-point Likert scale for accuracy, informativeness and readability. Together with a general evaluation (easiness, problematic content, incorrectness) and information-material specific evaluation (relevance and lowest reading level). Results: Significant differences were found between models across all domains. ChatGPT achieved the highest accuracy ( Conclusion: Each LLM showed distinct strength ChatGPT produced the most accurate answers, Copilot the most informative, and Gemini the simplest language. No model was uniformly superior. These findings support supervised, task-specific use of LLMs in patient education for breast reconstruction.

Indexed as

AIArtificial intelligenceBreast reconstructionDIEPLarge language modelsMicrosurgery

Identifiers

PMID41631018
PMCPMC12860690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.