Human vs Machine: The Future of Decision-making in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY Aesthetic Surgery Journal Pub Date : 2025-01-25 DOI:10.1093/asj/sjaf015
Alpay Duran, Anıl Demiröz, Oguz Çörtük, Bora Ok, Mustafa Özten, Sinem Eroğlu
{"title":"Human vs Machine: The Future of Decision-making in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.","authors":"Alpay Duran, Anıl Demiröz, Oguz Çörtük, Bora Ok, Mustafa Özten, Sinem Eroğlu","doi":"10.1093/asj/sjaf015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven technologies offer transformative potential in plastic surgery, spanning pre-operative planning, surgical procedures, and post-operative care, with the promise of improved patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the web-based ChatGPT-4o (omni; OpenAI, San Francisco, CA) and Gemini Advanced (Alphabet Inc., Mountain View, CA), focusing on their data upload feature and examining outcomes before and after exposure to CME articles, particularly regarding their efficacy relative to human participants.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants and LLMs completed 22 multiple-choice questions to assess baseline knowledge of CME topics. Initially, both LLMs and participants answered without article access. In incognito mode, the LLMs repeated the tests over 6 days. After accessing the articles, responses from both LLMs and participants were extracted and analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a significant increase in mean scores after the article was read in the resident group, indicating a significant rise. In the LLM groups, the ChatGPT-4.o (omni) group showed no significant difference between pre- and post-article scores, but the Gemini Advanced group demonstrated a significant increase. It can be stated that the ChatGPT-4.o and Gemini Advanced groups have higher accuracy means compared to the resident group in both pre and post-article periods.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The analysis between human participants and LLMs indicates promising implications for the incorporation of LLMs in medical education. As these models increase in sophistication, they offer the potential to serve as supplementary tools within traditional learning environments. This could aid in bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":7728,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic Surgery Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic Surgery Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjaf015","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven technologies offer transformative potential in plastic surgery, spanning pre-operative planning, surgical procedures, and post-operative care, with the promise of improved patient outcomes.

Objectives: To compare the web-based ChatGPT-4o (omni; OpenAI, San Francisco, CA) and Gemini Advanced (Alphabet Inc., Mountain View, CA), focusing on their data upload feature and examining outcomes before and after exposure to CME articles, particularly regarding their efficacy relative to human participants.

Methods: Participants and LLMs completed 22 multiple-choice questions to assess baseline knowledge of CME topics. Initially, both LLMs and participants answered without article access. In incognito mode, the LLMs repeated the tests over 6 days. After accessing the articles, responses from both LLMs and participants were extracted and analyzed.

Results: There was a significant increase in mean scores after the article was read in the resident group, indicating a significant rise. In the LLM groups, the ChatGPT-4.o (omni) group showed no significant difference between pre- and post-article scores, but the Gemini Advanced group demonstrated a significant increase. It can be stated that the ChatGPT-4.o and Gemini Advanced groups have higher accuracy means compared to the resident group in both pre and post-article periods.

Conclusions: The analysis between human participants and LLMs indicates promising implications for the incorporation of LLMs in medical education. As these models increase in sophistication, they offer the potential to serve as supplementary tools within traditional learning environments. This could aid in bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical implementation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
20.70%
发文量
309
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Aesthetic Surgery Journal is a peer-reviewed international journal focusing on scientific developments and clinical techniques in aesthetic surgery. The official publication of The Aesthetic Society, ASJ is also the official English-language journal of many major international societies of plastic, aesthetic and reconstructive surgery representing South America, Central America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. It is also the official journal of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, the Canadian Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and The Rhinoplasty Society.
期刊最新文献
Arterioembolic Characteristics of Differentially Diluted CaHA-CMC Gels Within an Artificial Macrovascular Perfusion Model. The Occurrence of Health Symptoms in General Practice Before and After the Explantation of Cosmetic Breast Implants. Correction to: Breast Pocket Lavage With Clindamycin Solution for Silicone Removal After Implant Rupture. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) in 252 Board-Certified Plastic Surgeons: Prevalences, ACE Clustering, and Effects on Adult Health and Behaviors, Including Self-Defined Depression, Work Addiction, and Burnout. IncobotulinumtoxinA in the Treatment of Upper Facial Lines: Results From Two Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1