ArticleRevista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes2026
Application of artificial intelligence as postoperative support for patients undergoing thoracic surgery.
Article in Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes, 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
introductionArtificial intelligence (AI) is playing an increasingly significant role in medicine, from imaging-based diagnosis to personalized treatment. In the postoperative period, it may enhance patient support by answering questions more clearly and reducing the need for in-person visits. However, its reliability and effects on the patient experience remain insufficiently studied. This study examined the potential of AI as a complementary tool in the care of patients undergoing thoracic surgery, assessing response accuracy, patient acceptance, and its potential to reshape postoperative follow-up.
methodsReal patient questions were collected and answered by both ChatGPT and specialist physicians. The responses were compared in terms of clarity, accuracy, and completeness. Participants evaluated their satisfaction with the information provided, their need to seek additional details, and their comfort level with using AI without medical supervision.
resultsAmong the patients evaluated, 74.3% reported that ChatGPT fully addressed their questions, and 91.4% found the language clear and accessible. However, 62.8% still indicated a need for medical confirmation. In addition, 51.4% of participants stated that they would seek additional information even after receiving an AI-generated response.
conclusionThe findings suggest that AI has strong potential to enhance patients' postoperative experience by providing rapid, accessible answers. However, its use should be integrated into a hybrid care model that combines technology with individualized medical oversight.
Indexed as
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.