Large Language Models for Intraoperative Decision Support in Plastic Surgery: A Comparison between ChatGPT-4 and Gemini.

Clicks: 162
ID: 279334
2024
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #45 of 64 articles by views in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
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
artificial intelligence plastic surgery reconstructive surgery intraoperative chatgpt large language models gemini

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.