ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022
Toward a Universal Measure of Facial Difference Using Two Novel Machine Learning Models.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Adapting a style based generative adversarial network to create images depicting cleft lip deformity.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A sensitive, objective, and universally accepted method of measuring facial deformity does not currently exist. Two distinct machine learning methods are described here that produce numerical scores reflecting the level of deformity of a wide variety of facial conditions.
methodsThe first proposed technique utilizes an object detector based on a cascade function of Haar features. The model was trained using a dataset of 200,000 normal faces, as well as a collection of images devoid of faces. With the model trained to detect normal faces, the face detector confidence score was shown to function as a reliable gauge of facial abnormality. The second technique developed is based on a deep learning architecture of a convolutional autoencoder trained with the same rich dataset of normal faces. Because the convolutional autoencoder regenerates images disposed toward their training dataset (ie, normal faces), we utilized its reconstruction error as an indicator of facial abnormality. Scores generated by both methods were compared with human ratings obtained using a survey of 80 subjects evaluating 60 images depicting a range of facial deformities [rating from 1 (abnormal) to 7 (normal)].
resultsThe machine scores were highly correlated to the average human score, with overall Pearson's correlation coefficient exceeding 0.96 (
conclusionsThese models show promise for adaptation into a clinically accessible handheld tool. It is anticipated that ongoing development of this technology will facilitate multicenter collaboration and comparison of outcomes between conditions, techniques, operators, and institutions.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.