ArticleEplasty2025
Facial Aesthetics in Artificial Intelligence: First Investigation Comparing Results in a Generative AI Study.
Article in Eplasty, 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.
- Visual representation bias in artificial intelligence-generated depictions of anesthesia, pain, and intensive care professionals.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Evolution of Facial Assessment in Aesthetic Medicine: 3D Imaging, Digital Analysis, and Patient-Reported Outcomes.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients undergoing facial plastic surgery are increasingly using artificial intelligence (AI) to visualize expected postoperative results. However, AI training models' variations and lack of proper surgical photography in training sets may result in inaccurate simulations and unrealistic patient expectations. This study aimed to determine if AI-generated images can deliver realistic expectations and be useful in a surgical context. Methods: The authors used AI platforms Midjourney (Midjourney, Inc), Leonardo (Canva), and Stable Diffusion (Stability AI) to generate otoplasty, genioplasty, rhinoplasty, and platysmaplasty images. Board-certified plastic surgeons and residents assessed these images based on 11 metrics that were grouped into 2 criteria: realism and clinical value. Analysis of variance and Tukey Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc analysis tests were used for data analysis. Results: Performance for each metric was reported as mean ± SD. Midjourney outperformed Stable Diffusion significantly in realism (3.57 ± 0.58 vs 2.90 ± 0.65; Conclusions: Certain AI models outperformed others in generating the images, with evaluator opinions varying on their realism and clinical value. Some images reasonably depicted the target area and the expected outcome; however, many images displayed inappropriate postsurgical outcomes or provoked the uncanny valley effect with their lack of realism. The authors stress the need for AI improvement to produce better pre- and postoperative images, and plan for further research comparing AI-generated visuals with actual surgical results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40661090PMC12257972What 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.