Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40764888›Full record

ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026

Comment on "An Artificial Intelligence Tool Used for Patient Selection in Cosmetic Surgery".

Kian Daneshi, Abhishek Saha, Hatan Mortada

Abstract readLetter
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kian DaneshiSchool of Population Health and Medicine, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Abhishek SahaMedical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Hatan MortadaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. hatanmortada@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1283-4136

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This commentary evaluates the study by Li et al. on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for patient selection in cosmetic surgery. While the integration of AI into aesthetic decision-making is promising, we raise concerns regarding methodological limitations, including the absence of subgroup analyses, reliance solely on surgeon judgment, and lack of outcome-based validation. Ethical considerations such as data governance, potential cognitive bias among surgeons, and the absence of psychological screening are also discussed. We advocate for future models to incorporate standardized psychometrics and patient-centered outcomes to ensure responsible and effective clinical integration. NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. 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

Artificial IntelligencePatient SelectionSurgery, PlasticClinical Decision-MakingHumansArtificial intelligenceBody dysmorphic disorderClinical validationCosmetic surgeryDigital health toolsEthical considerationsPatient selectionPsychometric assessmentSurgeon judgmentSurgical decision-making

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.