ArticleScientific reports2025
Developing an artificial intelligence-based progressive growing GAN for high-quality facial profile generation and evaluation through turing test and aesthetic analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Generative Artificial Intelligence-driven orthodontic education practices.BMC medical education · 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
This study aimed to develop a Progressive Growing Generative Adversarial Network with Gradient Penalty (WPGGAN-GP) to generate high-quality facial profile images, addressing the scarcity of diverse training data in orthodontics. A dataset of 50,000 profile images, representing varied ages, genders, and ethnicities, was collected from two centers. The WPGGAN-GP model was trained to generate high-resolution images (1024 × 1024 pixels) using a progressive growing approach. Evaluation included both quantitative and qualitative assessments. The Sliced Wasserstein Distance (SWD) between real and generated images reached 0.026. A Turing test was conducted with 15 observers (orthodontists, surgeons, and laypersons), each assessing 100 images (50 real, 50 generated). Average classification accuracies were 0.58, 0.578, and 0.46 for orthodontists, surgeons, and laypersons, respectively. Aesthetic evaluation involved six key facial angles, with only the naso-frontal angle showing a statistically significant difference (p = 0.032). The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for repeated measurements ranged from 0.952 to 0.968, and inter-rater ICC values exceeded 0.90, indicating excellent measurement consistency. Additionally, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) analysis revealed no significant difference between real and generated images (p > 0.05), confirming comparable photometric quality. The results suggest that the WPGGAN-GP model effectively generates realistic facial profiles with both anatomical and perceptual fidelity. This approach offers valuable applications in orthodontic education, treatment simulation, and data augmentation, particularly where patient privacy and dataset balance are critical. Future research should explore conditional generation models for specific malocclusion types and further diversify training data to enhance clinical relevance.
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.