Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Plastic surgery stands at an inflection point: proofs-of-concept for artificial intelligence (AI) abound, yet responsible clinical integration remains limited. We argue this reflects an organizational readiness gap rather than a modeling deficit. Three modifiable barriers dominate: (i) limited AI literacy and fragmented clinician-data-science collaboration; (ii) an immature human-capital pipeline in which junior champions lack senior sponsorship and protected time; and (iii) misaligned incentives and scarce funding that undervalue data sets, code, and rigorous external validation. We propose a pragmatic agenda: embed AI literacy across training and CME; formalize partnerships with engineering/informatics via co-appointments and governance; set aside 4-8 h per week of protected time for data preparation, privacy, legal approvals, model deployment and monitoring; and enable multi-institution studies using privacy-preserving methods (e.g., federated learning). Aligning editorial and funding expectations to reward transparency, calibration, and negative findings can shift the field from one-off prototypes to accountable, generalizable tools that measurably improve patient care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Karamitros et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: