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

Abstract

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

Ähnliche Arbeiten