Cited by 21Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationSurgical Simulation and TrainingArtificial Intelligence in Education

The Current Landscape of Artificial Intelligence in Plastic Surgery Education and Training: A Systematic Review

Genovese, Ariana, Borna, Sahar, Gomez-Cabello, Cesar A., Haider, Syed Ali, Prabha, Srinivasagam, Trabilsy, Maissa, Forte, Antonio Jorge·2025·Journal of Surgical Education

Abstract

Objective Artificial intelligence (AI) shows promise in surgery, but its role in plastic surgery education remains underexplored. This review evaluates the current landscape of AI in plastic surgery education.Design A systematic search was conducted on August 11, 2024, across PubMed, CINAHL, IEEE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar using terms related to AI, plastic surgery, and education. Original research articles focusing on AI in plastic surgery education were included, excluding correspondence, reviews, book chapters, theses, corrections, and non-peer-reviewed or non-English articles. Two investigators independently screened studies and synthesized data. ROBINS-I was used to assess bias.Results Fifteen studies were included, with 13 evaluating large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, Microsoft Bing, and Google Bard. ChatGPT-4 outperformed other models on In-Service Examinations (average score of 72.7%) and demonstrated potential as a teaching assistant in plastic surgery education. AI-generated personal statements were comparable to human-written ones. However, ChatGPT showed inaccuracies in generating surgical protocols. ChatGPT demonstrated its ability to provide qualitative predictions, forecasting survey results that indicated limited current use of AI in plastic surgery education but support for further AI research. a study combined ChatGPT with DALL-E 2, a generative model, to create acceptable educational images. Machine learning was used in 1 study for evaluating surgical skill and providing real-time feedback during liposuction. Nine studies had low risk of bias, while 6 had moderate risk.Conclusions AI demonstrates potential as an educational tool in plastic surgery. However, limitations of evidence, such as AI model uncertainties, introduce ambiguity. While AI cannot replicate the expertise of seasoned surgeons, it shows promise for foundational learning and skill assessment. Developing authenticity guidelines and enhancing AI capabilities are essential for its effective, ethical integration into plastic surgery education.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jsurg.2025.103519

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Genovese, A., Borna, S., Gomez-Cabello, C. A., Haider, S. A., Prabha, S., Trabilsy, M., & Forte, A. J.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Forte, Antonio Jorge
Venue
Journal of Surgical Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-08
Volume
82
Issue
8
Pages
103519
ISSN
  • 1878-7452 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-7204
OpenAlex
W4410389768
Cited by
21
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 6
FWCI
1.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of surgical education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
artificial intelligence, plastic surgery education, large language models, ChatGPT, surgical skill assessment, real-time feedback, generative AI, DALL-E 2, liposuction
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Graduate, Humans, Surgery, Plastic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review