MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026
Artificial Intelligence-Augmented Morphometric Reporting for Standardized Facial Aesthetic Treatment Planning: A Multi-Rater Reliability Study.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Karakoyun Ömer, Kaya Kadir, Kankılıç Ayşegül Tel, Ecer Nur
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Facial 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.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether AI-augmented morphometric reports improve the consistency of simulated aesthetic treatment plans among dermatologists.
METHODS: Six 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)).
RESULTS: Significant 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.
CONCLUSION: AI-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.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether AI-augmented morphometric reports improve the consistency of simulated aesthetic treatment plans among dermatologists.
METHODS: Six 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)).
RESULTS: Significant 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.
CONCLUSION: AI-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.