Large Language Models and Artificial Intelligence: A Primer for Plastic Surgeons on the Demonstrated and Potential Applications, Promises, and Limitations of ChatGPT
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence (AI) holds great potential for plastic surgeons. ChatGPT, a recently released AI large language model (LLM), promises applications across many disciplines, including healthcare. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article was to provide a primer for plastic surgeons on AI, LLM, and ChatGPT, including an analysis of current demonstrated and proposed clinical applications. METHODS: A systematic review was performed identifying medical and surgical literature on ChatGPT's proposed clinical applications. Variables assessed included applications investigated, command tasks provided, user input information, AI-emulated human skills, output validation, and reported limitations. RESULTS: The analysis included 175 articles reporting on 13 plastic surgery applications and 116 additional clinical applications, categorized by field and purpose. Thirty-four applications within plastic surgery are thus proposed, with relevance to different target audiences, including attending plastic surgeons (n = 17, 50%), trainees/educators (n = 8, 24.0%), researchers/scholars (n = 7, 21%), and patients (n = 2, 6%). The 15 identified limitations of ChatGPT were categorized by training data, algorithm, and ethical considerations. CONCLUSIONS: Widespread use of ChatGPT in plastic surgery will depend on rigorous research of proposed applications to validate performance and address limitations. This systemic review aims to guide research, development, and regulation to safely adopt AI in plastic surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it