19. Breastgan: Artificial Intelligence-enabled Breast Augmentation Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Managing patient expectations is important to ensuring patient satisfaction in aesthetic medicine. To this end, computer technology developed to photograph, digitize, and manipulate three-dimensional (3D) objects has been applied to the female breast. However, the systems remain complex, physically cumbersome, and extremely expensive. The authors of the current study wish to introduce the plastic surgery community to BreastGAN (Breast Generative Adversarial Network), a portable, artificial intelligence-equipped tool trained on real clinical images to simulate breast augmentation outcomes. Methods: Charts of all patients who underwent bilateral breast augmentation performed by the senior author were retrieved and analyzed. Frontal before and after images were collected from each patient’s chart, cropped in a standardized fashion, and used to train a neural network designed to manipulate before images to simulate a surgical result. AI-generated frontal after images were then compared to the real surgical results. Results: Standardizing the evaluation of surgical results is a timeless challenge which persists in the context of AI-synthesized after images. In this study, AI-generated images were comparable to real surgical results. Conclusion: This study features a portable, cost-effective neural network trained on real clinical images and designed to simulate surgical results following bilateral breast augmentation. Tools trained on a larger dataset of standardized surgical image pairs will be the subject of future studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".