ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Bridging the Gap: A Pilot Study Using Artificial Intelligence to Make Plastic Surgery Research Accessible.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Nearly 90% of Americans face health literacy challenges, limiting their ability to understand complex medical information. In plastic and reconstructive surgery, much of the literature exceeds recommended readability levels, creating barriers to patient education, including disparities-focused research. This study evaluated whether large language models (LLMs) can generate accurate and patient-accessible summaries of such research. Methods: Eight disparities-related plastic surgery articles from PubMed were input into 4 LLMs: ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Grok 3, and DeepSeek-V3, using a standardized prompt to simplify the text to a sixth- to eighth-grade reading level. Generated summaries were assessed using 4 readability metrics (Flesch Reading Ease [FRE], Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level [FKGL], Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index, and Gunning Fog Index) and were reviewed by a physician for accuracy. Results: Grok generated the most readable summaries, achieving average scores between the seventh- and ninth-grade reading levels (FRE Conclusions: Grok demonstrated superior readability while preserving accuracy, making it the only LLM to meet health literacy benchmarks. Other models fell short, underscoring a gap in artificial intelligence tools. Enhancing LLM performance could promote access to surgical literature and empower diverse patient populations through enhanced health communication.
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.