ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment of Four Artificial Intelligence Systems for Nasal Deformity Analysis in Rhinoplasty.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the performance of four artificial intelligence (AI) systems (ChatGPT 4o, Claude 3.7, Gemini 2.0, and Grok 2) in analysing nasal deformities.
methodsThe artificial intelligence chatbots were compared to experts in terms of their capacity to analyse nasal deformities. A quantitative analysis compared AI-generated MIRA scores with expert MIRA scores using error measures, Bland-Altman analysis, concordance metrics, and intraclass correlation coefficients to evaluate agreement and systematic bias. A qualitative evaluation was conducted using a 5-point Likert scale to characterise the major nasal type (tension nose, saddle nose, deviated nose, etc.).
resultsFifty adult patients seeking rhinoplasty were evaluated by the chatbots and two experts based on standardised photographs. The evaluations by the two surgeons demonstrated very strong concordance (ICC = 0.997) for nasal analysis using the MIRA scale. Only Claude 3.7 and the experts had comparable total MIRA score evaluations (p > 0.05). Detailed analysis of MIRA sub-scores showed a significant difference between chatbots and experts across all models (p < 0.05), including Claude. Grok 2 (p < 0.001) demonstrated the poorest performance. The qualitative description of the nose by ChatGPT 4o achieved the best results, with an accuracy rate reaching 70%.
conclusionsNo model achieved significant performance on MIRA sub-scores in the quantitative analysis of nasal deformity. The qualitative assessment shows that ChatGPT4o could assist, under supervision, with rhinoplasty assessments to analyse major nose types. However, it was effective in only two-thirds of cases. To date, AI tools are not reliable for analysing nasal deformities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: 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
42547595What 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.