Large Language Models for Intraoperative Decision Support in Plastic Surgery: A Comparison between ChatGPT-4 and Gemini.
Clicks: 62
ID: 279334
2024
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Improving Quality
0.0
/100
Combines engagement data with AI-assessed academic quality
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
6.6
/100
22 views
22 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are emerging as valuable tools in plastic surgery, potentially reducing surgeons' cognitive loads and improving patients' outcomes. This study aimed to assess and compare the current state of the two most common and readily available LLMs, Open AI's ChatGPT-4 and Google's Gemini Pro (1.0 Pro), in providing intraoperative decision support in plastic and reconstructive surgery procedures. We presented each LLM with 32 independent intraoperative scenarios spanning 5 procedures. We utilized a 5-point and a 3-point Likert scale for medical accuracy and relevance, respectively. We determined the readability of the responses using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score. Additionally, we measured the models' response time. We compared the performance using the Mann-Whitney U test and Student's t-test. ChatGPT-4 significantly outperformed Gemini in providing accurate (3.59 ± 0.84 vs. 3.13 ± 0.83, -value = 0.022) and relevant (2.28 ± 0.77 vs. 1.88 ± 0.83, -value = 0.032) responses. Alternatively, Gemini provided more concise and readable responses, with an average FKGL (12.80 ± 1.56) significantly lower than ChatGPT-4's (15.00 ± 1.89) ( < 0.0001). However, there was no difference in the FRE scores ( = 0.174). Moreover, Gemini's average response time was significantly faster (8.15 ± 1.42 s) than ChatGPT'-4's (13.70 ± 2.87 s) ( < 0.0001). Although ChatGPT-4 provided more accurate and relevant responses, both models demonstrated potential as intraoperative tools. Nevertheless, their performance inconsistency across the different procedures underscores the need for further training and optimization to ensure their reliability as intraoperative decision-support tools.
| Reference Key |
gomezcabello2024largemedicina
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Gomez-Cabello, Cesar A;Borna, Sahar;Pressman, Sophia M;Haider, Syed Ali;Forte, Antonio J; |
| Journal | Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) |
| Year | 2024 |
| DOI |
957
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.