Background: The long-term recovery rate of chemosensitive functions in coronavirus disease 2019 patients has not yet been determined.Method: A multicentre prospective study on 138 coronavirus disease 2019 patients was conducted. Olfactory and gustatory functions were prospectively evaluated for 60 days.Results: Within the first 4 days of coronavirus disease 2019, 84.8 per cent of patients had chemosensitive dysfunction that gradually improved over the observation period. The most significant increase in chemosensitive scores occurred in the first 10 days for taste and between 10 and 20 days for smell. At the end of the observation period (60 days after symptom onset), 7.2 per cent of the patients still had severe dysfunctions. The risk of developing a long-lasting disorder becomes significant at 10 days for taste (odds ratio = 40.2, 95 per cent confidence interval = 2.204–733.2,p= 0.013) and 20 days for smell (odds ratio = 58.5, 95 per cent confidence interval = 3.278–1043.5,p= 0.005).Conclusion: Chemosensitive disturbances persisted in 7.2 per cent of patients 60 days after clinical onset. Specific therapies should be initiated in patients with severe olfactory and gustatory disturbances 20 days after disease onset.

Objective: To investigate the accuracy of Chat‐Based Generative Pre‐trained Transformer (ChatGPT) in answering questions and solving clinical scenarios of head and neck surgery.Study Design: Observational and valuative study.Setting: Eighteen surgeons from 14 Italian head and neck surgery units.Methods: A total of 144 clinical questions encompassing different subspecialities of head and neck surgery and 15 comprehensive clinical scenarios were developed. Questions and scenarios were inputted into ChatGPT4, and the resulting answers were evaluated by the researchers using accuracy (range 1‐6), completeness (range 1‐3), and references' quality Likert scales.Results: The overall median score of open‐ended questions was 6 (interquartile range[IQR]: 5‐6) for accuracy and 3 (IQR: 2‐3) for completeness. Overall, the reviewers rated the answer as entirely or nearly entirely correct in 87.2% of cases and as comprehensive and covering all aspects of the question in 73% of cases. The artificial intelligence (AI) model achieved a correct response in 84.7% of the closed‐ended questions (11 wrong answers). As for the clinical scenarios, ChatGPT provided a fully or nearly fully correct diagnosis in 81.7% of cases. The proposed diagnostic or therapeutic procedure was judged to be complete in 56.7% of cases. The overall quality of the bibliographic references was poor, and sources were nonexistent in 46.4% of the cases.Conclusion: The results generally demonstrate a good level of accuracy in the AI's answers. The AI's ability to resolve complex clinical scenarios is promising, but it still falls short of being considered a reliable support for the decision‐making process of specialists in head‐neck surgery.