ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Artificial intelligence for assessing the severity of microtia
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Reconstructive Microsurgery.Seminars in plastic surgery · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence Applications in Pediatric Craniofacial Surgery.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence assisted identification of newborn auricular deformities via smartphone application.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Exploring the Utility of ChatGPT in Cleft Lip Repair Education.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in plastic surgery, where do we stand?JPRAS open · 2024Review
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
Background: Microtia is a congenital abnormality varying from slightly structural abnormalities to the complete absence of the external ear. However, there is no gold standard for assessing the severity of microtia. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to develop and test models of artificial intelligence to assess the severity of microtia using clinical photographs. Methods: A total of 800 ear images were included, and randomly divided into training, validation, and test set. Nine convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were trained for classifying the severity of microtia. The evaluation metrics, including accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, receiver operating characteristic curve, and area under the curve (AUC) values, were used to evaluate the performance of the models. Results: Eight CNNs were tested with accuracy greater than 0.8. Among them, Alexnet and Mobilenet achieved the highest accuracy of 0.9. Except for Mnasnet, all CNNs achieved high AUC values higher than 0.9 for each grade of microtia. In most CNNs, the grade I microtia had the lowest AUC values and the normal ear had the highest AUC values. Conclusion: CNN can classify the severity of microtia with high accuracy. Artificial intelligence is expected to provide an objective, automated assessment of the severity of microtia.
Indexed as
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.