Simulation-based study demonstrates GPT-5's superior accuracy and safety in bariatric surgery decisions, indicating potential for clinical use.
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) models are increasingly proposed for surgical decision support, yet their reliability in high-risk domains such as bariatric surgery remains uncertain. Prior bariatric AI studies have mainly evaluated patient education, isolated question-answering, or predictive modeling rather than paired safety-focused decision simulation across the perioperative pathway. Materials and Methods: This simulation-based paired-comparison study evaluated GPT-5 and Gemini using 60 expert-validated bariatric surgery vignettes spanning preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative decision-making. Both models were queried under standardized low-temperature conditions. Three bariatric surgeons independently scored outputs for accuracy, safety, guideline adherence, and reasoning quality. Reporting was aligned with STROBE, with AI diagnostic-evaluation elements informed by STARD-AI and analytic transparency principles informed by TRIPOD+AI. Results: GPT-5 outperformed Gemini across all domains. GPT-5 achieved higher accuracy (87.3% vs. 72.4%), stronger guideline adherence (78% vs. 46%), and fewer unsafe recommendations (2.1% vs. 8.4%). Composite scores were significantly higher for GPT-5 (6.92±0.61) than for Gemini (5.43±0.88; P <0.001). Gemini was 4 times more likely to produce an unsafe action than GPT-5 (risk ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.2-7.3). The largest accuracy gap occurred in intraoperative scenarios. Expert concordance was substantial for GPT-5 (κ=0.71) and moderate for Gemini (κ=0.54). Conclusion: GPT-5 demonstrated superior accuracy, guideline alignment, and safety compared with Gemini in bariatric surgery decision simulations. Although these findings support the potential of advanced LLMs as supervised decision-support tools, unsafe outputs persisted, reinforcing the need for model version transparency, prospective validation, and clinician oversight before clinical deployment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Çalışkan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: