Artificial Intelligence-Augmented Morphometric Reporting for Standardized Facial Aesthetic Treatment Planning: A Multi-Rater Reliability Study.
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.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.