Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 16, 2026
Processing of Human Reduction Mammoplasty and Mastectomy Tissues for Cell Culture
Published on: January 3, 2013
Man Versus Machine: A Comparative Study of Human and ChatGPT-Generated Abstracts in Plastic Surgery Research
Sophia M Pressman1, John P Garcia2, Sahar Borna1
1Division of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA.
Background:
Since its 2022 release, ChatGPT has gained recognition for its potential to expedite time-consuming writing tasks like scientific writing. Well-written scientific abstracts are essential for clear and efficient communication of research findings. This study aims to explore ChatGPT-4's capability to produce well-crafted abstracts.
Methods:
Ten abstract-less plastic surgery articles from PubMed were uploaded to ChatGPT, each with a prompt to generate one abstract. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) were calculated for all abstracts. Additionally, three physician evaluators blindly assessed the ten original and ten ChatGPT-generated abstracts using a 5-point Likert scale. Results were compared and analyzed using descriptive statistics with mean and standard deviation (SD).
Results:
The original abstracts averaged an FKGL of 14.1 (SD 2.9) and an FRES of 25.2 (SD 14.2), while ChatGPT-generated abstracts had scores of 15.6 (SD 2.4) and 15.4 (SD 13.1), respectively. Collectively, evaluators identified two-thirds of the ChatGPT abstracts, but preferred the ChatGPT abstracts 90% of the time. On average, the evaluators found the ChatGPT abstracts to be more "well written" (4.23 vs. 3.50, p value < 0.001) and "clear and concise" (4.30 vs. 3.53, p value < 0.001) compared to the original abstracts.
Conclusions:
Despite a slightly higher reading level, evaluators generally preferred ChatGPT abstracts, which received higher ratings overall. These findings suggest ChatGPT holds promise in expediting the creation of high-quality scientific abstracts, potentially enhancing efficiency in research and scientific writing tasks. However, due to its exploratory nature, this study calls for additional research to validate these promising findings.
Level Of Evidence Iv:
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
