Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41083894›Full record

ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026

'Your Face, Their Stage': A Global, AI-Enhanced, Mixed-Methods Survey on Public Perceptions of Live Educational Cosmetic Procedures.

Eqram Rahman, Alain Michon, Parinitha Rao, Patricia E Garcia, Hany Niamey Abu-Farsakh, Mobasheratul Jannat, Syed Nazim Hussain, Nanze Yu, Elias Tam, Sotirios Ioannidis and 5 more

Abstract read
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

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Eqram RahmanResearch and Innovation Hub, Innovation Aesthetics, London, WC2H 9JQ, UK. Eqram.rahman@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-8443-8338
Alain MichonThe Ottawa Skin Clinic/Project Skin MD Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Parinitha RaoThe Skin Address, Aesthetic Dermatology Practice, Bangalore, India.
Patricia E GarciaPrivate practice in dermatology, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.
Hany Niamey Abu-FarsakhIstishari Hospital, Amman, 840431, Jordan.
Mobasheratul JannatInstitute of Health Sciences hospital, Chittagong, Bangladesh.
Syed Nazim HussainDermaTrico Clinic, Delhi, India.
Nanze YuDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Elias TamEHA Shaw Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
Sotirios IoannidisPlastic Surgery Clinic, 546 21, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Zakia RahmanStanford Department of Dermatology, Redwood City, California, USA.
Greg J GoodmanMonash University Australia, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Woffles T L WuWoffles Wu Aesthetic Surgery and Laser Centre, 1, Orchard Boulevard Suite 09-02, Singapore, Singapore.
William Richard WebbResearch and Innovation Hub, Innovation Aesthetics, London, WC2H 9JQ, UK.
Jean D A CarruthersDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe global rise of live cosmetic procedure demonstrations particularly in non-surgical aesthetic medicine has prompted growing ethical concern. While often framed as educational, these public displays risk conflating clinical care with commercial performance.

methodsA multilingual cross-sectional survey of 16,950 participants from 43 countries captured public perceptions of live aesthetic procedures using both structured and open-ended items. AI-enhanced methodologies including natural language processing (NLP), sentiment analysis, and machine learning (ML) were applied to assess attitudes, emotional responses, and predictors of negative sentiment.

resultsRespondents exhibited high levels of ethical discomfort: 76.5% believed live procedures served self-promotional aims, while 69.7% perceived them as compromising patient privacy. Narrative analysis showed that 49.8% of open-text responses expressed negative sentiment, with dominant emotional tones being disgust (24.3%) and concern (22.8%). Topic modelling identified six core public concerns: commercial exploitation (22.5%), power imbalance in consent (19.3%), and surveillance culture (14.2%) among them. Predictive modelling using logistic regression and random forest classifiers (AUC = 0.82, F1 = 0.765) revealed narrative polarity, region, emotional tone, and prior cosmetic experience as significant predictors of negative sentiment. Respondents with no prior procedural history were more likely to describe feelings of exposure, shame, and loss of autonomy. Notably, nearly half of respondents expressed concern about the future of cosmetic medicine, citing risks of performance-driven care and ethical erosion. In response, we propose the INFORM-A checklist, an evidence-based ethical framework to guide the conduct of live or recorded procedural broadcasts.

conclusionPublic perception of live cosmetic procedures is characterised by scepticism and emotional discomfort, particularly when transparency and ethical safeguards are absent. The educational value of these practices is widely contested, with findings suggesting a misalignment between professional intent and public trust. Regulators, practitioners, and conference organisers must reevaluate the ethics of live procedural demonstrations in favour of consent-driven, accountable, and psychologically safe educational alternatives. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. 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 IntelligenceCosmetic TechniquesPublic OpinionAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEstheticsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAI in bioethicsCosmetic demonstrationsInformed consentLive aesthetic proceduresMedical ethicsNLPPatient autonomyPredictive modellingPublic perceptionSentiment analysisVisual ethics

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.