Pressman, Sophia M.

Background: Anatomically accurate illustrations are imperative in medical education, serving as crucial tools to facilitate comprehension of complex anatomical structures. While traditional illustration methods involving human artists remain the gold standard, the rapid advancement of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) models presents a new opportunity to automate and accelerate this process. This study evaluated the potential of GAI models to produce craniofacial anatomy illustrations for educational purposes. Methods: Four GAI models, including Midjourney v6.0, DALL-E 3, Gemini Ultra 1.0, and Stable Diffusion 2.0 were used to generate 736 images across multiple views of surface anatomy, bones, muscles, blood vessels, and nerves of the cranium in both oil painting and realistic photograph styles. Four reviewers evaluated the images for anatomical detail, aesthetic quality, usability, and cost-effectiveness. Inter-rater reliability analysis assessed evaluation consistency. Results: Midjourney v6.0 scored highest for aesthetic quality and cost-effectiveness, and DALL-E 3 performed best for anatomical detail and usability. The inter-rater reliability analysis demonstrated a high level of agreement among reviewers (ICC = 0.858, 95% CI). However, all models showed significant flaws in depicting crucial anatomical details such as foramina, suture lines, muscular origins/insertions, and neurovascular structures. These limitations were further characterized by abstract depictions, mixing of layers, shadowing, abnormal muscle arrangements, and labeling errors. Conclusions: These findings highlight GAI’s potential for rapidly creating craniofacial anatomy illustrations but also its current limitations due to inadequate training data and incomplete understanding of complex anatomy. Refining these models through precise training data and expert feedback is vital. Ethical considerations, such as potential biases, copyright challenges, and the risks of propagating inaccurate information, must also be carefully navigated. Further refinement of GAI models and ethical safeguards are essential for safe use.

Accurate identification of surgical instruments is crucial for efficient workflows and patient safety within the operating room, particularly in preventing complications such as retained surgical instruments. Artificial Intelligence (AI) models have shown the potential to automate this process. This study evaluates the accuracy of publicly available Large Language Models (LLMs)—ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-4o, and Gemini—and a specialized commercial mobile application, Surgical-Instrument Directory (SID 2.0), in identifying surgical instruments from images. The study utilized a dataset of 92 high-resolution images of 25 surgical instruments (retractors, forceps, scissors, and trocars) photographed from multiple angles. Model performance was evaluated using accuracy, weighted precision, recall, and F1 score. ChatGPT-4o exhibited the highest accuracy (89.1%) in categorizing instruments (e.g., scissors, forceps). SID 2.0 (77.2%) and ChatGPT-4 (76.1%) achieved comparable accuracy, while Gemini (44.6%) demonstrated lower accuracy in this task. For precise subtype identification of instrument names (like “Mayo scissors” or “Kelly forceps”), all models had low accuracy, with SID 2.0 having an accuracy of 39.1%, followed by ChatGPT-4o (33.69%). Subgroup analysis revealed ChatGPT-4 and 4o recognized trocars in all instances. Similarly, Gemini identified surgical scissors in all instances. In conclusion, publicly available LLMs can reliably identify surgical instruments at the category level, with ChatGPT-4o demonstrating an overall edge. However, precise subtype identification remains a challenge for all models. These findings highlight the potential of AI-driven solutions to enhance surgical-instrument management and underscore the need for further refinements to improve accuracy and support patient safety.

Abstract Background Breast cancer is one of the most common types of cancer, with around 2.3 million cases diagnosed in 2020. One in five cancer patients develops chronic lymphedema caused by multifactorial triggers and treatment-related factors. This can lead to swelling, skin infections, and limb dysfunction, negatively affecting the patient's quality of life. This retrospective cohort study aimed to determine the associations between demographic and breast cancer characteristics and postoperative cellulitis in breast cancer survivors who underwent lymphovenous bypass surgery (LVB) at Mayo Clinic, Florida. Methods We performed a retrospective chart review. Data were collected retrospectively from 2016 to 2022. Sixty adult breast cancer survivors who underwent LVB were included in the final analysis based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were excluded if they did not meet the inclusion criteria or had incomplete follow-up data. Demographic and surgical data were extracted, including body mass index (BMI), type of anastomosis, number of anastomoses, and preoperative cellulitis status. Lymphedema measurements were performed using tape measurements. Fisher's exact test was used to determine statistically significant associations between variables and postoperative cellulitis. Results Postoperative cellulitis was more common in patients aged 60 to 69 years (43.2%), whites (75.0%), overweight or obese (90.9%), with one to four anastomoses (81.8%), and nonsmokers (79.5%). The mean International Society of Lymphology (ISL) criteria for both postoperative cellulitis and no postoperative cellulitis was 1.93. Statistically significant associations with postoperative cellulitis were found for the number of anastomoses (p = 0.021), smoking status (p = 0.049), preoperative cellulitis (p = 0.04), and the length of years with lymphedema diagnosis variable (p = 0.004). Conclusion Our results suggest that a greater number of anastomoses, smoking, preoperative cellulitis, and years with lymphedema are significantly associated with an increased risk of postoperative cellulitis. Awareness of these risk factors is crucial for monitoring and early treatment of infections following surgery.

Medical researchers are increasingly utilizing advanced LLMs like ChatGPT-4 and Gemini to enhance diagnostic processes in the medical field. This research focuses on their ability to comprehend and apply complex medical classification systems for breast conditions, which can significantly aid plastic surgeons in making informed decisions for diagnosis and treatment, ultimately leading to improved patient outcomes. Fifty clinical scenarios were created to evaluate the classification accuracy of each LLM across five established breast-related classification systems. Scores from 0 to 2 were assigned to LLM responses to denote incorrect, partially correct, or completely correct classifications. Descriptive statistics were employed to compare the performances of ChatGPT-4 and Gemini. Gemini exhibited superior overall performance, achieving 98% accuracy compared to ChatGPT-4’s 71%. While both models performed well in the Baker classification for capsular contracture and UTSW classification for gynecomastia, Gemini consistently outperformed ChatGPT-4 in other systems, such as the Fischer Grade Classification for gender-affirming mastectomy, Kajava Classification for ectopic breast tissue, and Regnault Classification for breast ptosis. With further development, integrating LLMs into plastic surgery practice will likely enhance diagnostic support and decision making.

Background and Objectives: 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. Materials and Methods: 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. Results: ChatGPT-4 significantly outperformed Gemini in providing accurate (3.59 ± 0.84 vs. 3.13 ± 0.83, p-value = 0.022) and relevant (2.28 ± 0.77 vs. 1.88 ± 0.83, p-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) (p < 0.0001). However, there was no difference in the FRE scores (p = 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) (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: 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.

In the U.S., diagnostic errors are common across various healthcare settings due to factors like complex procedures and multiple healthcare providers, often exacerbated by inadequate initial evaluations. This study explores the role of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically OpenAI’s ChatGPT-4 and Google Gemini, in improving emergency decision-making in plastic and reconstructive surgery by evaluating their effectiveness both with and without physical examination data. Thirty medical vignettes covering emergency conditions such as fractures and nerve injuries were used to assess the diagnostic and management responses of the models. These responses were evaluated by medical professionals against established clinical guidelines, using statistical analyses including the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results showed that ChatGPT-4 consistently outperformed Gemini in both diagnosis and management, irrespective of the presence of physical examination data, though no significant differences were noted within each model’s performance across different data scenarios. Conclusively, while ChatGPT-4 demonstrates superior accuracy and management capabilities, the addition of physical examination data, though enhancing response detail, did not significantly surpass traditional medical resources. This underscores the utility of AI in supporting clinical decision-making, particularly in scenarios with limited data, suggesting its role as a complement to, rather than a replacement for, comprehensive clinical evaluation and expertise.

Since their release, the medical community has been actively exploring large language models’ (LLMs) capabilities, which show promise in providing accurate medical knowledge. One potential application is as a patient resource. This study analyzes and compares the ability of the currently available LLMs, ChatGPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Gemini, to provide postoperative care recommendations to plastic surgery patients. We presented each model with 32 questions addressing common patient concerns after surgical cosmetic procedures and evaluated the medical accuracy, readability, understandability, and actionability of the models’ responses. The three LLMs provided equally accurate information, with GPT-3.5 averaging the highest on the Likert scale (LS) (4.18 ± 0.93) (p = 0.849), while Gemini provided significantly more readable (p = 0.001) and understandable responses (p = 0.014; p = 0.001). There was no difference in the actionability of the models’ responses (p = 0.830). Although LLMs have shown their potential as adjunctive tools in postoperative patient care, further refinement and research are imperative to enable their evolution into comprehensive standalone resources.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) represent a recent advancement in artificial intelligence with medical applications across various healthcare domains. The objective of this review is to highlight how LLMs can be utilized by clinicians and surgeons in their everyday practice. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Six databases were searched to identify relevant articles. Eligibility criteria emphasized articles focused primarily on clinical and surgical applications of LLMs. Results: The literature search yielded 333 results, with 34 meeting eligibility criteria. All articles were from 2023. There were 14 original research articles, four letters, one interview, and 15 review articles. These articles covered a wide variety of medical specialties, including various surgical subspecialties. Conclusions: LLMs have the potential to enhance healthcare delivery. In clinical settings, LLMs can assist in diagnosis, treatment guidance, patient triage, physician knowledge augmentation, and administrative tasks. In surgical settings, LLMs can assist surgeons with documentation, surgical planning, and intraoperative guidance. However, addressing their limitations and concerns, particularly those related to accuracy and biases, is crucial. LLMs should be viewed as tools to complement, not replace, the expertise of healthcare professionals.

In postoperative care, patient education and follow-up are pivotal for enhancing the quality of care and satisfaction. Artificial intelligence virtual assistants (AIVA) and large language models (LLMs) like Google BARD and ChatGPT-4 offer avenues for addressing patient queries using natural language processing (NLP) techniques. However, the accuracy and appropriateness of the information vary across these platforms, necessitating a comparative study to evaluate their efficacy in this domain. We conducted a study comparing AIVA (using Google Dialogflow) with ChatGPT-4 and Google BARD, assessing the accuracy, knowledge gap, and response appropriateness. AIVA demonstrated superior performance, with significantly higher accuracy (mean: 0.9) and lower knowledge gap (mean: 0.1) compared to BARD and ChatGPT-4. Additionally, AIVA’s responses received higher Likert scores for appropriateness. Our findings suggest that specialized AI tools like AIVA are more effective in delivering precise and contextually relevant information for postoperative care compared to general-purpose LLMs. While ChatGPT-4 shows promise, its performance varies, particularly in verbal interactions. This underscores the importance of tailored AI solutions in healthcare, where accuracy and clarity are paramount. Our study highlights the necessity for further research and the development of customized AI solutions to address specific medical contexts and improve patient outcomes.

This study aims to explore how artificial intelligence can help ease the burden on caregivers, filling a gap in current research and healthcare practices due to the growing challenge of an aging population and increased reliance on informal caregivers. We conducted a search with Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science, focusing on AI and caregiving. Our inclusion criteria were studies where AI supports informal caregivers, excluding those solely for data collection. Adhering to PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we eliminated duplicates and screened for relevance. From 947 initially identified articles, 10 met our criteria, focusing on AI’s role in aiding informal caregivers. These studies, conducted between 2012 and 2023, were globally distributed, with 80% employing machine learning. Validation methods varied, with Hold-Out being the most frequent. Metrics across studies revealed accuracies ranging from 71.60% to 99.33%. Specific methods, like SCUT in conjunction with NNs and LibSVM, showcased accuracy between 93.42% and 95.36% as well as F-measures spanning 93.30% to 95.41%. AUC values indicated model performance variability, ranging from 0.50 to 0.85 in select models. Our review highlights AI’s role in aiding informal caregivers, showing promising results despite different approaches. AI tools provide smart, adaptive support, improving caregivers’ effectiveness and well-being.