A Comparative Study on the Use of DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT-4.5 in Different Aspects of Plastic Surgery

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to enhance medical practice, but its application in plastic surgery remains underexplored. DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT-4.5 are AI models that can assist with clinical tasks, but their performance in plastic surgery-related queries needs evaluation. This study compares the two models in providing clinically relevant, detailed, and accurate responses.

The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the performance of DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT-4.5 across 10 plastic surgery-related tasks, focusing on accuracy, detail, and clinical relevance.

This comparative evaluation was conducted by having two senior plastic surgeons review the AI-generated responses for each task. The responses were rated on a 1-10 scale based on their accuracy, completeness, and clinical relevance. The tasks involved both general knowledge questions and more complex, clinically relevant tasks such as medical history notes and hospital admission/discharge slips. After scoring, the mean and standard deviation (SD) were calculated for each model to evaluate their overall performance and consistency.

The results revealed that DeepSeek-R1 consistently outperformed ChatGPT-4.5 across all tasks, with higher average scores for both evaluators. DeepSeek-R1 excelled in tasks requiring high clinical detail, comprehensive explanations, and professional-level accuracy, particularly in tasks involving botulinum toxin, medical documentation, and novel research topics. In contrast, ChatGPT-4.5 was rated higher for tasks requiring concise responses, providing accurate but less detailed overviews. The mean scores for DeepSeek-R1 were significantly higher, with lower standard deviations, indicating greater consistency in its responses. ChatGPT-4.5, though performing well for general inquiries, showed more variability and scored lower in complex clinical tasks.

DeepSeek-R1 is better suited for tasks needing clinical detail and professional-level accuracy, while ChatGPT-4.5 excels in providing quick, concise responses. Both models show promise in supporting plastic surgery practice and education, but should complement, not replace, human expertise.

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 .