Comparative Performance of Current Patient-Accessible Artificial Intelligence Large Language Models in the Preoperative Education of Patients in Facial Aesthetic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence large language models (LLMs) represent promising resources for patient guidance and education in aesthetic surgery. Objectives: The present study directly compares the performance of OpenAI's ChatGPT (San Francisco, CA) with Google's Bard (Mountain View, CA) in this patient-related clinical application. Methods: Standardized questions were generated and posed to ChatGPT and Bard from the perspective of simulated patients interested in facelift, rhinoplasty, and brow lift. Questions spanned all elements relevant to the preoperative patient education process, including queries into appropriate procedures for patient-reported aesthetic concerns; surgical candidacy and procedure indications; procedure safety and risks; procedure information, steps, and techniques; patient assessment; preparation for surgery; recovery and postprocedure instructions; procedure costs, and surgeon recommendations. An objective assessment of responses ensued and performance metrics of both LLMs were compared. Results: ChatGPT scored 8.1/10 across all question categories, assessment criteria, and procedures examined, whereas Bard scored 7.4/10. Overall accuracy of information was scored at 6.7/10 ± 3.5 for ChatGPT and 6.5/10 ± 2.3 for Bard; comprehensiveness was scored as 6.6/10 ± 3.5 vs 6.3/10 ± 2.6; objectivity as 8.2/10 ± 1.0 vs 7.2/10 ± 0.8, safety as 8.8/10 ± 0.4 vs 7.8/10 ± 0.7, communication clarity as 9.3/10 ± 0.6 vs 8.5/10 ± 0.3, and acknowledgment of limitations as 8.9/10 ± 0.2 vs 8.1/10 ± 0.5, respectively. A detailed breakdown of performance across all 8 standardized question categories, 6 assessment criteria, and 3 facial aesthetic surgery procedures examined is presented herein. Conclusions: ChatGPT outperformed Bard in all assessment categories examined, with more accurate, comprehensive, objective, safe, and clear responses provided. Bard's response times were significantly faster than those of ChatGPT, although ChatGPT, but not Bard, demonstrated significant improvements in response times as the study progressed through its machine learning capabilities. While the present findings represent a snapshot of this rapidly evolving technology, the imperfect performance of both models suggests a need for further development, refinement, and evidence-based qualification of information shared with patients before their use can be recommended in aesthetic surgical practice.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".