INTRODUCTION
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is defined as the study of algorithms that empower systems to perform cognitive tasks such as reasoning, problem-solving, word recognition, and decision-making 1.
AI has emerged as a transformative force across various industries 2, with a particularly profound impact on healthcare. Key subfields of AI, including machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing, diagnostic assistance, and facial recognition, have potential applications in plastic surgery 3-5.
Among AI applications are chatbots like ChatGPT, a generative language model capable of understanding and generating text in natural language. This allows for conversational interactions with patients, addressing health-related inquiries.
With patients’ increasing tendency of internet use for researching medical conditions, ChatGPT is no exception; however, the information obtained – often from unverified sources – may influence patients’ treatment decisions 6,7.
This study aims to evaluate the quality of medical information provided by ChatGPT for Assigned Female At Birth (AFAB) patients undergoing gender-affirming surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Given that some patients may use ChatGPT as a resource for medical information, questions were posed to the chatbot in a manner consistent with how an Assigned Female At Birth (AFAB) patient interested in gender-affirming surgery might inquire. Specifically, information was sought about two of the most commonly performed procedures in this field: top surgery and phalloplasty.
The quality of information provided was assessed using a standardized scale, the EQIP 8,9, which consists of 36 questions divided into three sections: Content (items 1-18), Identification Data (items 19-24), and Structure (items 25-36). Each item requires a YES or NO response, with each affirmative answer earning one point. The total score ranges from 0 to 36, with a passing threshold typically set around 18.
The “Content Data” section evaluates the quality of information related to medical issues, potential solutions, benefits and risks, and warning signs that patients should be able to recognize. The “Identification Data” section assesses the reliability of the sources, considering factors such as bibliography, revision date, and the name of the person or entity providing the document. The “Structure Data” section focuses on the simplicity and accessibility of the language used, including the use of short sentences, a respectful tone, clear presentation of information, and logical organization.
The survey was administered by a group of 30 individuals, comprising 15 plastic surgery residents and 15 non-healthcare professionals. The data, collected in February 2023, were analyzed using SPSS Software version 28.0 (IBM Corporation; Armonk, New York).
RESULTS
Two separate surveys were carried out to evaluate the quality of information provided by ChatGPT concerning two major procedures in Assigned Female At Birth (AFAB) patients undergoing gender-affirming surgery: phalloplasty and top surgery.
The quality of information was found to be marginally adequate in both assessments, with notable qualitative differences across the survey sections.
The survey on “Phalloplasty” (Tab. I) yielded an average total score of 19/36. Conversely, the survey on “Top Surgery” (Tab. II) achieved an average score of 18/36.
In both surveys, ChatGPT demonstrated a commendable ability to deliver information in a clear and accessible manner, receiving high scores in the “Structure Data” category (9/12 in each survey).
Regarding the completeness of the information provided, as indicated in the “Content Data” section, the results were adequate (10/18 and 9/18).
However, a significant shortcoming was observed in the “Identification Data” section, with a score of 0/6 in both surveys. This deficiency underscores the absence of critical information, including references, bibliographies, and the names of the entities or individuals responsible for providing the content.
DISCUSSION
In recent years, technology’s role in the healthcare setting has advanced significantly, offering among other things innovative ways for patients to obtain information about their medical conditions. As websites and platforms that disseminate medical information continually evolve, there is an increasing need to identify high-quality and reliable sources. Among these innovative tools are AI-based platforms, notably chatbots like ChatGPT.
In this context, ChatGPT emerges as a valuable resource for individuals considering plastic surgery, including gender reassignment surgery.
The terminology used to discuss gender identity and related medical care has evolved significantly, reflecting increased respect for gender-nonconforming individuals. Previously common terms such as “transsexual” and “sex change operations” are now considered outdated and pathologizing. Terms like MTF (Male-to-Female) and FTM (Female-to-Male) were also used but fail to fully capture the spectrum of gender identities recognized today. Contemporary terminology is more inclusive and precise. “Gender-affirming care” now encompasses medical, psychological, and social interventions that support an individual’s gender identity. Terms like AMAB (Assigned Male at Birth) and AFAB (Assigned Female at Birth) acknowledge that gender assignment at birth may not align with one’s true gender identity. “Non-binary” describes identities beyond the male/female binary, allowing broader recognition of gender diversity. “Gender Dysphoria” has replaced “Gender Identity Disorder,” reflecting a more compassionate understanding of the distress experienced by some individuals. “Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy (GAHT)” describes hormone treatments that align physical characteristics with gender identity.
ChatGPT, utilizing the GPT-4 architecture, comprehends and employs contemporary, respectful language related to gender identity. It accurately details how AMAB and AFAB individuals might seek gender-affirming treatments and acknowledges the importance of inclusive terms like “non-binary.” ChatGPT ensures that discussions are both accurate and sensitive, fostering a more compassionate environment for care. The shift to updated terminology represents a cultural and medical progression towards greater inclusivity and respect for gender diversity 10-14.
The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of information provided by ChatGPT for patients undergoing gender-affirming surgery, focusing on two common procedures: phalloplasty and top surgery. The EQIP scale was used for an objective and standardized assessment. Information was solicited through straightforward questions, similar to those that could be posed by a prospective patient.
Gender-affirming surgery has emerged as the most effective treatment for individuals with gender dysphoria – a condition where one’s gender identity does not align with their biological characteristics – encompassing psychotherapy, hormonal therapy, and surgery 15.
Gender-affirming surgery has been shown in numerous studies to alleviate some of the anguish experienced by patients with gender dysphoria. Following surgery paired with endocrinological and psychiatric care, social life, mental and physical health, and life satisfaction all improve 16.
ChatGPT can be a valuable resource for these sensitive patients, offering information in a non-judgmental and inclusive manner. Gender-affirming surgeries include both genital and non-genital procedures. Major genital procedures for AFAB patients involve penile and scrotal reconstruction, while AMAB patients might undergo penectomy and orchidectomy. Non-genital treatments include facial feminization surgery, voice surgery, and breast enlargement or mastectomy.
Guidelines and standards of treatment, including surgical eligibility requirements, are currently published and reviewed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health for patients suffering from gender dysphoria 13. In Assigned Female At Birth (AFAB) patients gender-affirming undergoing gender-affirming surgery, two primary interventions are top surgery and phalloplasty. Phalloplasty involves creating a penis-like structure, with goals including an aesthetically pleasing phallus 17, complete urethroplasty without strictures and fistulae 18, tactile and erogenous sensitivity, stationary urination, ability to achieve an erections and engage in penetrative intercourse. Various flaps may be used to perform phalloplasty 17.
To assess the quality of information provided by ChatGPT, the chatbot was queried about phalloplasty, and the responses were analyzed using the EQIP scale. The results, as shown in Table I, yielded a score of 19/36.
Top surgery, or chest contouring, involves breast removal to create a male chest. It can be performed using three techniques: remote incision without skin excision (“keyhole mastectomy”), periareolar skin excision, and double incision mastectomy (DIM). All approaches may result in skin excess and nipple retraction, with aesthetic outcomes dependent on skin contraction 19.
Information about top surgery was similarly evaluated using the EQIP scale, yielding a score of 18/36, as shown in Table II.
Surgeons are crucial in the healthcare system, not only as skilled practitioners but also as primary communicators of medical information, guiding patients utilizing accurate and reliable sources. On the other hand AI is increasingly becoming a reference point for patients 20. This study aims to investigate the quality of information provided by ChatGPT and evaluate its potential role in the doctor-patient relationship. While ChatGPT offers accessible and understandable information, its reliability needs thorough examination to determine if it can be a viable tool for healthcare professionals.
ChatGPT proves to be a valuable resource for individuals seeking information on gender reassignment surgery, combining accessibility, anonymity, and information. Many individuals considering gender-affirming surgery may prefer to seek information anonymously.
Artificial intelligence is gaining prominence in the medical field, with various studies exploring its applications.
Najafali et al. 21 examined how chatbots could be integrated into gender-affirming surgery, highlighting areas for increased adoption such as partnering with gender communities, ensuring privacy, enhancing cultural competence, and providing multilingual support.
Also, Walker et al. 22 assessed ChatGPT’s reliability and found it comparable to static internet information.
Recent studies have also evaluated ChatGPT’s performance in plastic surgery contexts. Xie et al. 23 examined ChatGPT’s responses in rhinoplasty consultations, finding it capable of delivering coherent and comprehensible answers.
Grippaudo et al. 24 assessed ChatGPT’s information on breast plastic surgery, noting its role as a bridge between medical professionals and patients, but highlighting the lack of source verification.
In the present study as well, the “Identification data” section obtained a very low score, with a 0/6 in both investigations.
In this study, ChatGPT demonstrated effectiveness in providing simple and comprehensible information, achieving high scores in the “Structure” category of the EQIP scale. However, significant issues were noted due to the absence of references, resulting in low scores in the “Identification Data” section. This tool remains valuable but requires addressing critical issues.
AI’s rapid advancement, particularly through platforms like GPT-4, holds transformative potential in plastic surgery. While not flawless, GPT-4’s ability to analyze complex cases and provide viable treatment options highlights its promise as an adjunct to traditional care, emphasizing the growing integration of AI in personalized medical treatments 25.
Limitations include the general nature of the questions posed, which may affect the content’s quality, and the lack of source verification. Additionally, since questions were posed in English, the quality of information in other languages may differ. ChatGPT’s ability to continuously learn and update its database means that future assessments may vary.
While ChatGPT offers accessible and understandable information, its reliability needs thorough examination to determine if it can be a viable tool for healthcare professionals.
The integration of AI and digital tools in plastic surgery, such as predictive platforms and deep learning models, is revolutionizing patient care by enhancing surgical planning and outcomes. These advancements, particularly relevant to gender-affirming procedures, emphasize the increasing role of technology in delivering precise, personalized, and efficient medical treatments 26.
CONCLUSIONS
ChatGPT is increasingly employed as a tool for information retrieval across various domains, including medicine. Plastic surgery involves numerous procedures, and for patients undergoing surgeries with substantial psychological effects, such as gender-affirming surgery, anonymous information sources like ChatGPT can be particularly valuable. This study offers a thorough assessment of the quality of information provided by ChatGPT for Assigned Female At Birth (AFAB) patients undergoing gender-affirming surgery, employing the EQIP scale for an objective evaluation. The tool has shown remarkable proficiency in delivering information in a straightforward and accessible manner, attaining high scores in the “Structure” category. The completeness of the information, assessed in the “Content” category, was considered adequate. However, a notable shortfall was observed in the “Identification Data” section, revealing a lack of details about revision, bibliography, and the entity or individual responsible for the content. While the content score could improve with refined questioning, the absence of references and source verification remains a significant drawback. Thus, ChatGPT’s role should be regarded as supplementary to that of the healthcare professional.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author contributions
FRG: A
AP: D
VM: DT
LS: S
AP, VM, LS: W:
RD: O (supervised the manuscript development)
List of Abbreviations
A: conceived and designed the analysis
D: collected the data
DT: contributed data or analysis tool
S: performed the analysis
W: wrote the paper
O: other contribution (specify contribution in more detail)
Ethical considerations
Not applicable.
Declaration of AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process
During the preparation of this work the authors used ChatGPT in order to improve readability. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and takes full responsibility for the content of the publication.
History
Received: May 31, 2024
Accepted: September 4, 2024
Figures and tables
Question | Yes (%) | No (%) | Response |
---|---|---|---|
Content data | |||
Initial definition of which subjects will be covered | 100 | 0 | Yes |
Coverage of the above defined subjects | 60 | 40 | Yes |
Description of the medical problem | 90 | 10 | Yes |
Definition of the purpose of the medical intervention | 100 | 0 | Yes |
.Description of the treatment alternatives (including no treatment) | 60 | 40 | Yes |
Description of the sequence of the medical procedure | 100 | 0 | Yes |
Description of the qualitative benefits | 90 | 10 | Yes |
Description of the quantitative benefits | 0 | 100 | No |
Description of the qualitative risk and side effects | 0 | 100 | No |
Description of the quantitative risk and side effects | 0 | 100 | No |
Addressing quality of life issues | 100 | 0 | Yes |
Description of how potential complication will be dealt with | 0 | 100 | No |
Description of precautions that the patient may take | 80 | 20 | Yes |
Mention of the alert signs that the patient may detect | 0 | 100 | No |
Addressing medical intervention cost and insurance issue | 0 | 100 | No |
Specific contact details for hospital services | 0 | 100 | No |
Specific details of other sources of reliable information/support | 0 | 100 | No |
The document covers all relevant issues on the topic | 20 | 80 | No |
Identification data | |||
Date of issue or revision | 0 | 100 | No |
Logo of the issuing body | 0 | 100 | No |
Name of the persons or entities that produced the document | 0 | 100 | No |
Name of persons or entities that financed the document | 0 | 100 | No |
Short bibliography of evidence-based data used in the document | 0 | 100 | No |
The document states if and how patients were involved/consulted in its production | 0 | 100 | No |
Structure data | |||
Use of everyday language, explains complex words or jargon | 100 | 0 | Yes |
Use of generic names for all medications or products | 90 | 10 | Yes |
Use of short sentences | 100 | 0 | Yes |
The document personally addresses the reader | 60 | 40 | Yes |
The tone is respectful | 100 | 0 | Yes |
Information is clear | 100 | 0 | Yes |
Information is balanced between risk and benefits | 60 | 40 | Yes |
Information is presented in a logical order | 100 | 0 | Yes |
The design and layout is satisfactory | 70 | 30 | Yes |
Figures and graphs are clear and relevant | 0 | 100 | No |
The document has a named space for the reader’s note | 0 | 100 | No |
The document includes a consent form, contrary to reccomandations | 0 | 100 | No |
Question | Yes (%) | No (%) | Response |
---|---|---|---|
Content data | |||
Initial definition of which subjects will be covered | 100 | 0 | Yes |
Coverage of the above defined subjects | 60 | 40 | Yes |
Description of the medical problem | 90 | 10 | Yes |
Definition of the purpose of the medical intervention | 100 | 0 | Yes |
Description of the treatment alternatives (including no treatment) | 70 | 30 | Yes |
Description of the sequence of the medical procedure | 90 | 10 | Yes |
Description of the qualitative benefits | 90 | 10 | Yes |
Description of the quantitative benefits | 10 | 90 | No |
Description of the qualitative risk and side effects | 10 | 90 | No |
Description of the quantitative risk and side effects | 0 | 100 | No |
Addressing quality of life issues | 100 | 0 | Yes |
Description of how potential complication will be dealt with | 0 | 100 | No |
Description of precautions that the patient may take | 80 | 20 | Yes |
Mention of the alert signs that the patient may detect | 0 | 100 | No |
Addressing medical intervention cost and insurance issue | 0 | 100 | No |
Specific contact details for hospital services | 0 | 100 | No |
Specific details of other sources of reliable information/support | 70 | 30 | Yes |
The document covers all relevant issues on the topic | 20 | 80 | No |
Identification data | |||
Date of issue or revision | 0 | 100 | No |
Logo of the issuing body | 0 | 100 | No |
Name of the persons or entities that produced the document | 0 | 100 | No |
Name of persons or entities that financed the document | 0 | 100 | No |
Short bibliography of evidence-based data used in the document | 0 | 100 | No |
The document states if and how patients were involved/consulted in its production | 0 | 100 | No |
Structure data | |||
Use of everyday language, explains complex words or jargon | 100 | 0 | Yes |
Use of generic names for all medications or products | 90 | 10 | Yes |
Use of short sentences | 100 | 0 | Yes |
The document personally addresses the reader | 60 | 40 | Yes |
The tone is respectful | 100 | 0 | Yes |
Information is clear | 100 | 0 | Yes |
Information is balanced between risk and benefits | 60 | 40 | Yes |
Information is presented in a logical order | 100 | 0 | Yes |
The design and layout is satisfactory | 70 | 30 | Yes |
Figures and graphs are clear and relevant | 0 | 100 | No |
The document has a named space for the reader’s note | 0 | 100 | No |
The document includes a consent form, contrary to reccomandations | 0 | 100 | No |