Preoperative Patient Guidance and Education in Aesthetic Breast Plastic Surgery: A Novel Proposed Application of Artificial Intelligence Large Language Models
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: At a time when Internet and social media use is omnipresent among patients in their self-directed research about their medical or surgical needs, artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) are on track to represent hallmark resources in this context. Objectives: The authors aim to explore and assess the performance of a novel AI LLM in answering questions posed by simulated patients interested in aesthetic breast plastic surgery procedures. Methods: A publicly available AI LLM was queried using simulated interactions from the perspective of patients interested in breast augmentation, mastopexy, and breast reduction. Questions posed were standardized and categorized under aesthetic needs inquiries and awareness of appropriate procedures; patient candidacy and indications; procedure safety and risks; procedure information, steps, and techniques; patient assessment; preparation for surgery; postprocedure instructions and recovery; and procedure cost and surgeon recommendations. Using standardized Likert scales ranging from 1 to 10, 4 expert breast plastic surgeons evaluated responses provided by AI. A postparticipation survey assessed expert evaluators' experience with LLM technology, perceived utility, and limitations. Results: The overall performance across all question categories, assessment criteria, and procedures examined was 7.3/10 ± 0.5. Overall accuracy of information shared was scored at 7.1/10 ± 0.5; comprehensiveness at 7.0/10 ± 0.6; objectivity at 7.5/10 ± 0.4; safety at 7.5/10 ± 0.4; communication clarity at 7.3/10 ± 0.2; and acknowledgment of limitations at 7.7/10 ± 0.2. With regards to performance on procedures examined, the model's overall score was 7.0/10 ± 0.8 for breast augmentation; 7.6/10 ± 0.5 for mastopexy; and 7.4/10 ± 0.5 for breast reduction. The score on breast implant-specific knowledge was 6.7/10 ± 0.6. Conclusions: Albeit not without limitations, AI LLMs represent promising resources for patient guidance and patient education. The technology's machine learning capabilities may explain its improved performance efficiency.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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