Galvao, Andrea

Background/Objectives: Facial analysis is critical for preoperative planning in facial plastic surgery, but traditional methods can be time consuming and subjective. This study investigated the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for objective and efficient facial analysis in plastic surgery, with a specific focus on Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). We evaluated their ability to analyze facial skin quality, volume, symmetry, and adherence to aesthetic standards such as neoclassical facial canons and the golden ratio. Methods: We evaluated four MLLMs—ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-4, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet—using two evaluation forms and 15 diverse facial images generated by a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN). The general analysis form evaluated qualitative skin features (texture, type, thickness, wrinkling, photoaging, and overall symmetry). The facial ratios form assessed quantitative structural proportions, including division into equal fifths, adherence to the rule of thirds, and compatibility with the golden ratio. MLLM assessments were compared with evaluations from a plastic surgeon and manual measurements of facial ratios. Results: The MLLMs showed promise in analyzing qualitative features, but they struggled with precise quantitative measurements of facial ratios. Mean accuracy for general analysis were ChatGPT-4o (0.61 ± 0.49), Gemini 1.5 Pro (0.60 ± 0.49), ChatGPT-4 (0.57 ± 0.50), and Claude 3.5 Sonnet (0.52 ± 0.50). In facial ratio assessments, scores were lower, with Gemini 1.5 Pro achieving the highest mean accuracy (0.39 ± 0.49). Inter-rater reliability, based on Cohen’s Kappa values, ranged from poor to high for qualitative assessments (κ > 0.7 for some questions) but was generally poor (near or below zero) for quantitative assessments. Conclusions: Current general purpose MLLMs are not yet ready to replace manual clinical assessments but may assist in general facial feature analysis. These findings are based on testing models not specifically trained for facial analysis and serve to raise awareness among clinicians regarding the current capabilities and inherent limitations of readily available MLLMs in this specialized domain. This limitation may stem from challenges with spatial reasoning and fine-grained detail extraction, which are inherent limitations of current MLLMs. Future research should focus on enhancing the numerical accuracy and reliability of MLLMs for broader application in plastic surgery, potentially through improved training methods and integration with other AI technologies such as specialized computer vision algorithms for precise landmark detection and measurement.

Background: Anatomically accurate illustrations are imperative in medical education, serving as crucial tools to facilitate comprehension of complex anatomical structures. While traditional illustration methods involving human artists remain the gold standard, the rapid advancement of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) models presents a new opportunity to automate and accelerate this process. This study evaluated the potential of GAI models to produce craniofacial anatomy illustrations for educational purposes. Methods: Four GAI models, including Midjourney v6.0, DALL-E 3, Gemini Ultra 1.0, and Stable Diffusion 2.0 were used to generate 736 images across multiple views of surface anatomy, bones, muscles, blood vessels, and nerves of the cranium in both oil painting and realistic photograph styles. Four reviewers evaluated the images for anatomical detail, aesthetic quality, usability, and cost-effectiveness. Inter-rater reliability analysis assessed evaluation consistency. Results: Midjourney v6.0 scored highest for aesthetic quality and cost-effectiveness, and DALL-E 3 performed best for anatomical detail and usability. The inter-rater reliability analysis demonstrated a high level of agreement among reviewers (ICC = 0.858, 95% CI). However, all models showed significant flaws in depicting crucial anatomical details such as foramina, suture lines, muscular origins/insertions, and neurovascular structures. These limitations were further characterized by abstract depictions, mixing of layers, shadowing, abnormal muscle arrangements, and labeling errors. Conclusions: These findings highlight GAI’s potential for rapidly creating craniofacial anatomy illustrations but also its current limitations due to inadequate training data and incomplete understanding of complex anatomy. Refining these models through precise training data and expert feedback is vital. Ethical considerations, such as potential biases, copyright challenges, and the risks of propagating inaccurate information, must also be carefully navigated. Further refinement of GAI models and ethical safeguards are essential for safe use.