The 100 Most-disruptive Articles in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Sub-specialties (1954-2014)

The new frontier: utilizing ChatGPT to expand craniofacial research

BACKGROUND

Due to the importance of evidence-based research in plastic surgery, the authors of this study aimed to assess the accuracy of ChatGPT in generating novel systematic review ideas within the field of craniofacial surgery.

METHODS

ChatGPT was prompted to generate 20 novel systematic review ideas for 10 different subcategories within the field of craniofacial surgery. For each topic, the chatbot was told to give 10 "general" and 10 "specific" ideas that were related to the concept. In order to determine the accuracy of ChatGPT, a literature review was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane.

RESULTS

In total, 200 total systematic review research ideas were generated by ChatGPT. We found that the algorithm had an overall 57.5% accuracy at identifying novel systematic review ideas. ChatGPT was found to be 39% accurate for general topics and 76% accurate for specific topics.

CONCLUSION

Craniofacial surgeons should use ChatGPT as a tool. We found that ChatGPT provided more precise answers with specific research questions than with general questions and helped narrow down the search scope, leading to a more relevant and accurate response. Beyond research purposes, ChatGPT can augment patient consultations, improve healthcare equity, and assist in clinical decisionmaking. With rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), it is important for plastic surgeons to consider using AI in their clinical practice to improve patient-centered outcomes.

Paradigm Shifts in Vascular Surgery: Analysis of the Top 100 Innovative and Disruptive Academic Publications

BACKGROUND

Disruption score (DS) is a novel bibliometric created to identify research that shifts paradigms, which may be overlooked by citation count (CC). We analyzed the most disruptive, compared to the most cited, literature in vascular surgery, and hypothesized that DS and CC would not correlate.

METHODS

A PubMed search identified vascular surgery publications from 1954 to 2014. The publications were linked to the iCite NIH tool and DS algorithm to identify the top 100 studies by CC and DS, respectively. The publications were reviewed for study focus, design, and contribution, and subsequently compared.

RESULTS

A total of 56,640 publications were identified. The top 100 DS papers were frequently published in J Vasc Sur (43%) and Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg (13%). The top 100 CC papers were frequently published in N Engl J Med (32%) and J Vasc Sur (20%). The most cited article is the fifth most disruptive; the most disruptive article is not in the top 100 cited papers. The DS papers had a higher mean DS than the CC papers (.17 vs .0001, P < .0001). The CC papers had a higher mean CC than the DS papers (866 vs 188, P < .0001). DS and CC are weakly correlated metrics (r = .22, P = .03).

DISCUSSION

DS was weakly correlated with CC and captured a unique subset of literature that created paradigm shifts in vascular surgery. DS should be utilized as an adjunct to CC to avoid overlooking impactful research and influential researchers, and to measure true academic productivity.

Disruption of trauma research: an analysis of the top cited versus disruptive trauma research publications

Introduction

The analysis of surgical research using bibliometric measures has become increasingly prevalent. Absolute citation counts (CC) or indices are commonly used markers of research quality but may not adequately capture the most impactful research. A novel scoring system, the disruptive score (DS) has been found to identity academic work that either changes paradigms (disruptive (DIS) work) or entrenches ideas (developmental (DEV) work). We sought to analyze the most DIS and DEV versus most cited research in civilian trauma.

Methods

The top papers by DS and by CC from trauma and surgery journals were identified via a professional literature search. The identified publications were then linked to the National Institutes of Health iCite tool to quantify total CC and related metrics. The top 100 DIS and DEV publications by DS were analyzed based on the area of focus, citation, and perceived clinical impact, and compared with the top 100 papers by CC.

Results

32 293 articles published between 1954 and 2014 were identified. The most common publication location of selected articles was published in Journal of Trauma (31%). Retrospective reviews (73%) were common in DIS (73%) and top CC (67%) papers, while DEV papers were frequently case reports (49%). Only 1 publication was identified in the top 100 DIS and top 100 CC lists. There was no significant correlation between CC and DS among the top 100 DIS papers (r=0.02; p=0.85), and only a weak correlation between CC and DS score (r=0.21; p<0.05) among the top 100 DEV papers.

Conclusion

The disruption score identifies a unique subset of trauma academia. The most DIS trauma literature is highly distinct and has little overlap with top trauma publications identified by standard CC metrics, with no significant correlation between the CC and DS.

Level of evidence

Level IV.

Using the Disruptive Score to Identify Publications That Changed Plastic Surgery Practice

PURPOSE

The impact of academic publications is often characterized by the total number of future citations. However, this metric does not adequately characterize the true impact in terms of changing practices or paradigms. A new metric called the "disruption score" (DS) has been developed and validated in nonsurgical publications. This study aims to use the DS to identify the most disruptive publications in plastic surgery.The DS, a ratio of 2 numbers, varies between -1 and +1. Scores closer to -1 are developing papers that summarize the known literature while papers closer to +1 are disruptive-they result in a paradigm shift in the field of study.

METHODS

A search was performed for all articles from 1954 to 2014 in the following journals: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery; Aesthetic Surgery Journal; Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery; Annals of Plastic Surgery; Aesthetic Plastic Surgery; Clinics in Plastic Surgery; and Plastic Surgery. The disruptive score was calculated for each article.The top 100 papers ranked by DS were examined and any editorials/viewpoints, publications with less than 26 citations, or less than 3 references were excluded because of their subjective nature and smaller academic contribution. The remaining 64 publications were analyzed for topic, study type, and citation count.

RESULTS

A total of 32,622 articles were found with a DS range from 0.385 to 0.923. The mean score of the top 64 articles was 0.539 with an average citation count of 195 and 9 references. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery had the most disruptive papers with 50. There were no randomized controlled trials with a majority of the studies being technical descriptions or case series.

CONCLUSIONS

There are many ways to measure academic success, but there are fewer ways to measure the impact of academic contributions. The DS is a novel measurement that can demonstrate when an article results in a paradigm shift as opposed to just total citation count. When applied to the plastic surgery literature, the DS demonstrates that technical innovation and creativity are the most academically impactful. Future evaluations of academic success should include the DS to measure the quality of academic contributions.