ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Comparative Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Responses to Questions on Plastic Surgery Education: An Exploratory Study.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The training of plastic surgery residents is constantly evolving. This study explored whether different artificial intelligence (AI) systems highlight the same key aspects of residency training as experts in the field. Methods: Six modern AI systems (ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4o, Claude 3.5, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Llama 3.1 70B, and OpenAI o1) were tested on various aspects of residency training. Their responses were evaluated for accuracy, quality, and comprehensiveness both by the AI systems and by field experts. Results: All AI systems delivered accurate and comprehensive responses. OpenAI o1 and ChatGPT 4o consistently ranked highest, nearly achieving excellent scores in all categories. Although some systems addressed certain aspects more superficially, all identified most of the key elements and provided a solid overview of important topics in residency training. Conclusions: OpenAI o1 and ChatGPT 4o stood out for their accuracy and depth, emphasizing the potential of AI in medical education. AI may offer new opportunities for personalized and efficient surgical training.
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.