ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Can Artificial Intelligence Replicate Clinical Judgment in Aesthetic Surgery? A Comparison of ChatGPT and Plastic Surgeons' Recommendations.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince the emergence of the Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), artificial intelligence (AI) has change how medical information is accessed, processed, and utilized. However, its use in clinical environments, particularly in plastic surgery, poses ethical, medical, and safety challenges, especially when it is employed to generate aesthetic recommendations without appropriate professional supervision.
methodsA descriptive analysis was conducted using standardized medical photographs of 20 female patients under 50 years of age from the author's clinical database. Frontal projection images (thorax and abdomen) were uploaded to the ChatGPT-4 platform with the prompt: "What physical changes do you suggest?" and subsequently evaluated by board-certified plastic surgeons. The objective was to compare AI-generated recommendations with those provided by human specialists and to analyze the risks associated with using algorithms to validate or reinforce aesthetic standards.
resultsIn 18 of the 20 patients (90%), the AI suggested at least one surgical procedure, most commonly mastopexy (55%), classic abdominoplasty (55%), and liposculpture (20%). Combined breast and abdominal procedures were recommended in 15 cases (75%), whereas only 2 patients (10%) were advised to maintain their current physical condition. Overall similarity between AI and human recommendations was low (mean Jaccard index 0.1-0.2), with wide interpatient variability. Additionally, AI tended to recommend an equal or greater number of procedures compared with surgeons (median - 1, p < 0.05).
conclusionAlthough artificial intelligence represents a promising tool in medicine, AI tends to over-recommend aesthetic procedures without considering the reason for consultation, timing, or patient comorbidities. Its indiscriminate use in the aesthetic domain may contribute to reinforcing distorted perceptions of body image. Lacking clinical judgment, empathy, and sociocultural context, the application of AI in plastic surgery must be carefully regulated and guided by ethical principles. 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
42086964What 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.