ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Models in the Recognition of Postoperative Complications Following Aesthetic Surgery.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored as supportive tools in postoperative patient communication. However, their ability to recognize and appropriately manage postoperative surgical complications remains unclear. This study comparatively evaluated ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude in postoperative complication assessment following aesthetic surgical procedures.
methodsThirty standardized postoperative clinical scenarios representing low-, moderate-, and high-risk complications were independently submitted to the three AI systems using a standardized prompt. Responses were evaluated for diagnostic accuracy, management appropriateness, triage accuracy, patient safety, and completeness using 5-point Likert scales. Critical management errors and dangerous reassurance were additionally recorded.
resultsChatGPT demonstrated the highest overall performance across most domains. Mean diagnostic accuracy scores were 3.99 ± 0.57 for ChatGPT, 3.61 ± 0.62 for Gemini, and 3.90 ± 0.62 for Claude (p < 0.001). Critical management errors were uncommon overall but occurred most frequently with Gemini. In high-risk scenarios, appropriate emergency referral recommendations were identified in 93.3% of ChatGPT evaluations, 76.7% of Gemini evaluations, and 96.7% of Claude evaluations (p = 0.018).
conclusionThe evaluated AI systems demonstrated moderate-to-high capability in recognizing common postoperative complications; however, variability became more apparent in clinically urgent scenarios. Current LLMs may serve as supportive informational tools in postoperative care but should not replace physician assessment in potentially serious complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
42875611What 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.