AI vs. MD: Benchmarking ChatGPT and Gemini for Complex Wound Management

<b>Background:</b> The management of hard-to-heal wounds poses a major clinical challenge due to heterogeneous etiology and significant global healthcare costs (estimated at USD 148.64 billion in 2022). Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT and Gemini, are emerging as potential decision-support tools. This study aimed to rigorously assess the accuracy and reliability of ChatGPT and Gemini in the visual description and initial therapeutic management of complex wounds based solely on clinical images. <b>Methods:</b> Twenty clinical images of complex wounds from diverse etiologies were independently analyzed by ChatGPT (version dated 15 October 2025) and Gemini (version dated 15 October 2025). The models were queried using two standardized, concise prompts. The AI responses were compared against a clinical gold standard established by the unanimous consensus of an expert panel of three plastic surgeons. <b>Results:</b> Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in overall performance between the two models and the expert consensus. Gemini achieved a slightly higher percentage of perfect agreement in management recommendations (75.0% vs. 60.0% for ChatGPT). Both LLMs demonstrated high proficiency in identifying the etiology of vascular lesions and recognizing critical "red flags," such as signs of ischemia requiring urgent vascular assessment. Noted divergences included Gemini's greater suspicion of potential neoplastic etiology and the models' shared error in suggesting Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) in a case potentially contraindicated by severe infection. <b>Conclusions:</b> LLMs, particularly ChatGPT and Gemini, demonstrate significant potential as decision-support systems and educational tools in wound care, offering rapid diagnosis and standardized initial management, especially in non-specialist settings. Instances of divergence in systemic treatments or in atypical presentations highlight the limitations of relying on image-based reasoning alone. Ultimately, LLMs serve as powerful, scalable assets that, under professional supervision, can enhance diagnostic speed and improve care pathways.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2025-12-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14248825
Primary Topic
Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

AI vs. MD: Benchmarking ChatGPT and Gemini for Complex Wound Management

Francesco Ruben Giardino, Warren M. Rozen, Ishith Seth, Gianluca Marcaccini et al.
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
article

AI vs. MD: Benchmarking ChatGPT and Gemini for Complex Wound Management

Francesco Ruben Giardino, Warren M. Rozen, Ishith Seth, Gianluca Marcaccini, Roberto Cuomo, Luca Corradini, Camilla Biagiotti
article en

Abstract

<b>Background:</b> The management of hard-to-heal wounds poses a major clinical challenge due to heterogeneous etiology and significant global healthcare costs (estimated at USD 148.64 billion in 2022). Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT and Gemini, are emerging as potential decision-support tools. This study aimed to rigorously assess the accuracy and reliability of ChatGPT and Gemini in the visual description and initial therapeutic management of complex wounds based solely on clinical images. <b>Methods:</b> Twenty clinical images of complex wounds from diverse etiologies were independently analyzed by ChatGPT (version dated 15 October 2025) and Gemini (version dated 15 October 2025). The models were queried using two standardized, concise prompts. The AI responses were compared against a clinical gold standard established by the unanimous consensus of an expert panel of three plastic surgeons. <b>Results:</b> Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in overall performance between the two models and the expert consensus. Gemini achieved a slightly higher percentage of perfect agreement in management recommendations (75.0% vs. 60.0% for ChatGPT). Both LLMs demonstrated high proficiency in identifying the etiology of vascular lesions and recognizing critical "red flags," such as signs of ischemia requiring urgent vascular assessment. Noted divergences included Gemini's greater suspicion of potential neoplastic etiology and the models' shared error in suggesting Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) in a case potentially contraindicated by severe infection. <b>Conclusions:</b> LLMs, particularly ChatGPT and Gemini, demonstrate significant potential as decision-support systems and educational tools in wound care, offering rapid diagnosis and standardized initial management, especially in non-specialist settings. Instances of divergence in systemic treatments or in atypical presentations highlight the limitations of relying on image-based reasoning alone. Ultimately, LLMs serve as powerful, scalable assets that, under professional supervision, can enhance diagnostic speed and improve care pathways.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 14(24)
University of Siena (IT), University of Pisa (IT), Frankston Hospital (AU), Peninsula Health (AU), Monash University (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 43%
Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.