ReviewAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2025
Face evaluation: Findings, methods, and challenges.
Review in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Training humans to detect AI-generated faces.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Face evaluation: Findings, methods, and challenges.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Complex evaluative judgments from facial appearance are made efficiently and are consequential. We review some of the most important findings and methods over the last two decades of research on face evaluation. Such evaluative judgments emerge early in development and show a surprising consistency over time and across cultures. Judgments of trustworthiness, in particular, are closely associated with general valence evaluation of faces and are grounded in resemblance to emotional expressions, signaling approach versus avoidance behaviors. Data-driven computational models have been critical for the discovery of the configurations of features, including resemblance to emotional expressions, driving specific judgments. However, almost all models are based on judgments aggregated across individuals, essentially masking idiosyncratic differences in judgments. Yet, recent research shows that most of the meaningful variance of complex judgments such as trustworthiness is idiosyncratic: explained not by stimulus features, but by participants and participants by stimuli interactions. Hence, to understand complex judgments, we need to develop methods for building models of judgments of individual participants. We describe one such method, combining the strengths of well-established methods with recent developments in machine learning.
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.