Observational studyAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots for Facial Injection Planning: Comparative Performance and Safety Limitations.
Observational study in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the performance of artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots in generating treatment plans for facial aesthetic injections, focusing on their accuracy, safety, and clinical applicability.
methodsA comparative observational study was conducted in an otolaryngology tertiary care department according to STROBE guidelines. Patients seeking facial injections were recruited from July to October 2024. Forty patients (85% female; mean age: 45.8 years) underwent photographic documentation and received AI-generated treatment plans for botulinum toxin and hyaluronic acid injections. Six AI chatbots and three generative vision models were evaluated based on five criteria: product selection, injection strategy, facial analysis, alignment with patient preferences, and safety. Likert scale ratings, each ranging from - 2 to + 2, were analyzed using Friedman and Durbin-Conover pairwise tests to identify significant differences (p < 0.05). The sum of the five Likert scales provided an overall score ranging from - 10 to + 10.
resultsChatGPTo1 and ChatGPT4o achieved higher scores than other chatbots across most evaluation criteria, with mean total scores of 7.87 ± 0.29 and 7.85 ± 0.44, respectively (p = 0.295). Both chatbots were statistically superior (p < 0.05) to Claude, CopilotPro, and Llama in product selection (ChatGPT4o = 1.92 ± 0.05), injection strategy precision (ChatGPTo1 = 1.67 ± 0.08), alignment with patient preferences (ChatGPTo1 = 1.95 ± 0.03) and safety (ChatGPTo1 = 1.30 ± 0.17). Claude provided relevant facial analysis (1.50 ± 0.16) without significant difference compared to ChatGPT models (all p > 0.05). Generative vision models failed to produce relevant visual annotations.
conclusionAmong the AI systems tested, ChatGPT-based chatbots demonstrated relatively superior performance in generating treatment plans for facial injections. However, safety limitations remain and preclude unsupervised clinical use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
40670654What 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.