ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
The Surgeon's Digital Eye: Assessing Artificial Intelligence-generated Images in Breast Augmentation and Reduction.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. 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.
- Assessing ChatGPT-4o's Image Generation for Educational Infographics in Plastic Surgery: A Pilot Study.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Given the public's tendency to overestimate the capability of artificial intelligence (AI) in surgical outcomes for plastic surgery, this study assesses the accuracy of AI-generated images for breast augmentation and reduction, aiming to determine if AI technology can deliver realistic expectations and can be useful in a surgical context. Methods: We used AI platforms GetIMG, Leonardo, and Perchance to create pre- and postsurgery images of breast augmentation and reduction. Board-certified plastic surgeons and plastic surgery residents evaluated these images using 11 metrics and divided them into 2 categories: realism and clinical value. Statistical analysis was conducted using analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference post hoc tests. Images of the nipple-areolar complex were excluded due to AI's nudity restrictions. Results: GetIMG (mean ± SD) (realism: 3.83 ± 0.81, clinical value: 3.13 ± 0.62), Leonardo (realism: 3.30 ± 0.69, clinical value: 2.94 ± 0.47), and Perchance (realism: 2.68 ± 0.77, clinical value: 2.88 ± 0.44) showed comparable realism and clinical value scores with no significant difference ( Conclusions: The AI models showed similar performance, with some images accurately predicting postsurgical outcomes, particularly breast size and volume in a bra. Despite this promise, the absence of detailed nipple-areola complex visualization is a significant limitation. Until these features and consistent representations of various body types and skin tones are achievable, the authors advise using actual patient photographs for consultations.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.