Canonical text (the exact bytes fingerprinted)

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-2289
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-10-27T18:34:49.125368Z
status: published
lens: trace
sector: health
headline: Large Language Models and Applied Surgical Anatomy: Evaluation of Anatomical Reasoning in Expert-Derived Plastic Surgery Scenarios
dek: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being integrated into medical education, research, and clinical decision-support applications; however, their ability to apply anatomical knowledge in clinically relevant surgical scenarios remains insufficiently studied. This study evaluated and compared the performance of six contemporary LLMs (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, DeepSeek, Copilot, and Manus) using 25 expert-derived applied surgical anatomy scenarios relevant to plastic surgery. Scenarios were developed by an…
gain_title: On 25 expert-written plastic surgery anatomy scenarios, ChatGPT scored 250/250 and Gemini 248/250, with all six chatbots tested scoring at least 219/250.
problem_title: Despite high scores, DeepSeek, Claude and Manus each made one critical error in a reconstructive vascular physiology scenario, showing anatomical misconceptions that could matter for surgical decisions.
trace_subject: LLM anatomical reasoning in plastic surgery scenarios
gain_reading: On 25 expert-written plastic surgery anatomy scenarios, ChatGPT scored 250/250 and Gemini 248/250, with all six chatbots tested scoring at least 219/250.
gain_evidence: ChatGPT achieved the maximum aggregate score (250/250), followed by Gemini (248/250)
problem_reading: Despite high scores, DeepSeek, Claude and Manus each made one critical error in a reconstructive vascular physiology scenario, showing anatomical misconceptions that could matter for surgical decisions.
problem_evidence: DeepSeek, Claude, and Manus each demonstrated one observed critical error | clinically significant anatomical misconceptions persisted despite high aggregate scores
quick_read: Researchers tested six chatbots, ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, DeepSeek, Copilot and Manus, on 25 applied surgical anatomy scenarios written by an anatomy professor and two plastic surgeons. Answers were graded on accuracy, clinical reasoning, completeness and safety, up to 10 points per question.

The results suggest current chatbots handle this kind of anatomy reasoning well, which may matter as they enter medical education and decision support. Yet the rare critical errors, all in one vascular physiology scenario, show that high averages can hide clinically relevant mistakes, and the benchmark cannot show how the tools perform in real surgical practice.
limitation: Ceiling effects limited discrimination among top models, so the results reflect performance on this specific benchmark rather than a general ranking of anatomical reasoning ability.
tag: Dual reading
key_points: Models differed significantly in overall performance (Friedman χ2 = 43.51, p < 0.001). | Scores ranged from ChatGPT 250/250 and Gemini 248/250 to DeepSeek 241, Copilot 240, Claude 235 and Manus 219. | Critical errors were infrequent and confined to one reconstructive vascular physiology scenario. | ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot made no critical errors; DeepSeek, Claude and Manus made one each.
rundown: The scenarios were developed by a panel of one associate professor of anatomy and two plastic surgeons, and each model received a standardized prompt. A structured rubric scored anatomical accuracy, clinical reasoning, completeness and safety, and critical errors were assessed separately.

Although all models performed excellently overall, the authors say future evaluations should look beyond overall accuracy to clinically meaningful error patterns that could influence surgical decision-making.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | Clinical Anatomy | https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.70243 | 2026-10-26
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

sha256

166c98e4552b0457623d7b229777011d04b6258d2aa0b6e9018bc2069d3db15e

previous

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000