ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2026
Artificial Intelligence in Plastic Surgery Education: A Global Multimodel Benchmark of Large Language Models on the Plastic Surgery In-Service Training Examination.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 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: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in plastic surgery education. Previous studies have shown that flagship models can achieve high scores on medical examinations, including the Plastic Surgery In-Service Training Examination (PSITE). Yet evaluations often rely on single-shot accuracy of proprietary systems, neglecting stochastic variability and open-source or non-US alternatives. Objectives: The aim of this study was to comprehensively benchmark a globally representative cohort of 14 LLMs on the PSITE, assessing not only accuracy but also inter-run reliability and stochastic variability and to evaluate their role as educational tools in plastic surgery training. Methods: A cross-sectional study evaluated 7 proprietary and 7 open-source models using 100 text-based PSITE questions from the 2017-2018 examinations. Each model underwent 5 independent runs ( Results: Claude Opus 4.5 (Anthropic, San Francisco, CA) (90.2%) and GPT-5.2 Pro (Open AI, San Francisco, CA) (87.0%) achieved the highest accuracy. Proprietary models significantly outperformed open-source alternatives (mean 76.1% vs 60.2%) and demonstrated superior reliability ( Conclusions: Contemporary LLMs possess substantial plastic surgery knowledge, yet meaningful disparities in reliability persist. Although proprietary models currently demonstrate superior reliability as educational tools, the presence of stochastic instability necessitates cautious adoption. Accuracy alone is insufficient to judge clinical utility; stability metrics are essential for selecting AI tools in surgical education. Level of Evidence 5 Therapeutic:
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.