ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2026
Artificial Intelligence-Augmented Morphometric Reporting for Standardized Facial Aesthetic Treatment Planning: A Multi-Rater Reliability Study.
Article in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2026. 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.
- Reproducibility Without Rigidity: Sequential Agreement Auditing for the LA VISION Framework.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFacial aesthetic assessment is inherently subjective, leading to significant inter-observer variability in treatment planning. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a potential framework for standardized morphometric reporting.
objectiveTo evaluate whether AI-augmented morphometric reports improve the consistency of simulated aesthetic treatment plans among dermatologists.
methodsSix dermatologists (3 experts, 3 residents) proposed treatment plans (neurotoxin units and filler volumes) for 76 standardized frontal images from the Chicago Face Database. In Phase I (Baseline), raters used visual intuition. In Phase II (AI-Augmented), raters were provided with objective morphometric reports. The primary outcome was the change in inter-rater reliability, measured by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC(2,1)).
resultsSignificant baseline asymmetry (> 1.5 scaled units) was present in 58.4% of cases. The overall ICC(2,1) improved from 0.62 (95% CI: 0.54-0.69) to 0.88 (95% CI: 0.81-0.93) following AI augmentation. The most substantial improvement was observed in the resident group (ICC: 0.46 to 0.84). The mean absolute deviation from the expert-group mean declined from 0.34 to 0.12 scaled units.
conclusionAI-augmented morphometric reporting was associated with improved inter-rater agreement and reduced variability in simulated facial aesthetic treatment planning, particularly among less experienced raters. However, improved agreement does not necessarily reflect improved clinical accuracy, and future validation against clinical outcomes is warranted. The AI system functioned as a decision-support tool rather than a replacement for clinician judgment.
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.