ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Comparing Deep Plane and Superficial Musculoaponeurotic System Facelifts Using Artificial Intelligence-Based Age Estimation.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although artificial intelligence (AI) is implemented in diagnostic medicine, few modalities exist to evaluate aesthetic outcomes. The literature demonstrates AI's ability to predict patient age mainly from frontal views, despite the importance of profile views in age perception. It is also uncertain how the predominant facelift techniques (deep plane versus SMAS) and adjunct procedures affect AI estimation. We aimed to investigate AI's ability to estimate age pre- and postoperatively using frontal and profile views, comparing outcomes across techniques and adjuncts. Methods: For each facelift technique in this retrospective study, Face++ AI age estimation software evaluated pre- and postoperative photographs of 100 female patients, identified from plastic surgery websites. Patients (N = 200) were grouped by facelift technique and adjunct procedures, and Microsoft Excel was implemented for data analysis. Results: Two hundred patients (100 deep plane, 100 SMAS; mean age 59.97 y) were analyzed using Face++ AI. Frontal images showed modest apparent age reduction (~2.5-2.8 y) with moderate accuracy, whereas profile images demonstrated substantial underestimation and high variability with a mean absolute error of 16-23 years. No significant differences in AI-estimated age reduction were detected between surgical approaches, and adjunct procedures did not significantly affect age estimates. Conclusions: This study uniquely evaluates Face ++ AI age estimation for SMAS and deep plane facelifts using both frontal and profile views within a single dataset. AI detected modest age reduction in frontal views but was inaccurate in profiles, and adjuncts had no significant effect, highlighting current AI limitations.
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.