Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41884761›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026

Bridging the Gap: A Pilot Study Using Artificial Intelligence to Make Plastic Surgery Research Accessible.

Rebeka A Dejenie, Bryce K Gantt, Malory M Alexis, Sierra M Shockley, Katherine Foote, Monet S Woolfolk, Derek Banyard, Paris D Butler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Rebeka A DejenieFrom the School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA.
Bryce K GanttHoward University College of Medicine, Washington, DC.
Malory M AlexisFlorida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, FL.
Sierra M ShockleyGood Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, OH.
Katherine FooteJacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
Monet S WoolfolkRush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
Derek BanyardThe Arthur L. Garnes Society, Orange, CA.
Paris D ButlerThe Arthur L. Garnes Society, Orange, CA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID41884761
PMCPMC13012324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.