Artificial intelligence (AI), especially large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, has disrupted different medical disciplines, including dermatology. This review explores the application of ChatGPT in dermatological diagnosis, emphasizing its role in natural language processing (NLP) for clinical data interpretation, differential diagnosis assistance, and patient communication enhancement. ChatGPT can enhance a diagnostic workflow when paired with image analysis tools, such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), by merging text and image data. While it boasts great capabilities, it still faces some issues, such as its inability to perform any direct image analyses and the risk of inaccurate suggestions. Ethical considerations, including patient data privacy and the responsibilities of the clinician, are discussed. Future perspectives include an integrated multimodal model and AI-assisted framework for diagnosis, which shall improve dermatology practice.

Background: Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are commonly used for midface augmentation because of their biocompatibility and reversibility. Nonetheless, discussions continue about their effectiveness and safety relative to other options. This systematic review and meta-analysis assess the effectiveness, duration, and side effects of HA fillers in midface volume restoration. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a thorough search was performed on PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE up to March 2025. The review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared HA fillers with controls, such as placebo or alternative treatments, for midface augmentation. Results: A total of fourteen studies were included in the review, and five studies in the statistical analysis. Analysis of five RCTs involving 748 participants showed a higher and significant difference in GAIS responder rates between HA and control groups (RR = 3.27, 95% CI: 2.26–4.75, p = 0.79; I² = 95%). GAIS scores at 4, 8, and 24 weeks demonstrated no notable improvements (all p > 0.05). Adverse events were rarely reported, and there was no significant rise in moderate-to-severe adverse events associated with HA fillers (RR = 1.70, 95% CI: 0.08–34.55, p = 0.73). Conclusions: HA fillers used for midface augmentation are generally safe, they have very high midface augmentation and patient satisfaction value, but they might not provide a notable subjective aesthetic benefit over the other fillers. Clinicians need to take into account patient expectations and refine their techniques, all while recognizing the limitations of existing evidence. Future research should include objective volumetric measurements and extend follow-up durations.

Background: Hyaluronic acid (HA) has emerged as a favored adjunct to restore volume after blepharoplasty and is very effective in the treatment of postoperative hollowness, sagging, and asymmetry. Its efficacy, rate of complications, and optimal injection technique are different in different clinical studies. Hyaluronidase has been studied by diverse methods in the treatment of HA complications, including chronic edema and surgical distortion. This study critically evaluated the efficacy, safety, and technical aspects of HA in the context of blepharoplasty outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was performed to evaluate the use of HA and hyaluronidase for post-blepharoplasty volume rejuvenation and the treatment of complications. Studies describing HA injection technique, time interval between blepharoplasty and injection, volumetric maintenance, complication rates, esthetic and functional results, and patient satisfaction scores were considered. Risk of bias was estimated with the ROBINS-I tool. Results: Sample sizes across the five included studies ranged from 5 to 109 patients, and follow-up intervals ranged from 1 month to 7 years. The age of patients ranged from 31 to 76 years, and females accounted for 86% of the participants in some studies. Injection of HA successfully restored meaningful volume, with retention persisting for over 12 months in the majority of cases. HA preoperative injection caused significant patient satisfaction in a short duration and was not associated with severe complications; delayed injection caused slight distortions in some revision operations. Lipofilling showed a reduced rate of complications (12%) compared with isolated blepharoplasty (20%), suggesting its utility as an adjuvant procedure of volume restoration. Hyaluronidase successfully treated recalcitrant edema, with improvements ranging from 50% to 100%, while the application of adjuvant RF microneedling caused complete remission (100%) in subjects with multiple treatments. The application of ultrasound imaging made measurements more precise, although methods of clinical assessment were significantly heterogeneous among the studies. Conclusions: HA displayed efficacy in terms of efficient volume restoration after blepharoplasty, especially when technique, time, and filler selection are meticulously optimized. In comparison to lipofilling, HA is seen as somewhat safer because of its reversibility and lower likelihood of adverse vascular events. Nonetheless, considerable variability in filler type, amount, timing of administration, and result evaluation constrains conclusive clinical recommendations. The use of hyaluronidase is an effective remedial approach for overcorrection or ongoing edema.

Botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) is widely used for upper facial lines, but investigator-based responder efficacy and durability across formulations, doses, and assessment methods remain inconsistently reported. In a post hoc analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials, we evaluated timepoint-specific responder prevalence from clinician assessments at maximum frown and at rest. Four binary responder definitions from ordinal wrinkle severity scales were analyzed separately: none or mild severity (G0–1), ≥1-point improvement, conversion from G2–3 to G0–1, and ≥2-point improvement. Proportions were pooled by random-effects meta-analysis, separately at each reported time point, and for each formulation/dose. Heterogeneity was quantified using I². Estimates required at least two contributing study arms, and formulations were not compared with one another. At maximum frown, pooled G0–1 prevalence with daxibotulinumtoxinA 40 U was 97% at week 1, 99% at month 1, and 41% at month 6. OnabotulinumtoxinA showed dose-dependent patterns, declining from 95% at week 2 to 8% at month 6 at 40 U, and from 80% at week 1 to 34% at month 4 at 20 U. AbobotulinumtoxinA 50 U declined from 83% at month 1 to 16% at month 6. More restrictive endpoints declined more steeply. At rest, temporal patterns were similar, and the two conditions were not formally compared. Responder prevalence was high early and attenuated substantially by 6 months, with a month 6 prevalence of 41% for daxibotulinumtoxinA 40 U and 8% to 23% for other combinations. These are descriptive formulation-specific observations, not evidence of comparative superiority, because potency units are not interchangeable between products. Timepoint-specific responder reporting is needed in BoNT-A trials.

Background: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a debilitating, chronic skin disease. Although adalimumab is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved biologic drug to treat HS, a significant number of patients develop primary or secondary failure to this treatment. Limited data exist in the literature on the effectiveness of the infliximab medication in such a group of patients. This study assesses the effectiveness and safety of infliximab treatment in patients diagnosed with HS whose adalimumab therapy has failed. Methods: The current retrospective study collected data from medical records of 40 HS patients who received infliximab after failure of adalimumab. The parameters included an evaluation of hidradenitis suppurativa clinical response (HiSCR) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) over time and determination of prognostic factors associated with the clinical response. Results: Twenty‐nine of 40 patients (72.5%) who were administered infliximab reached HiSCR at 24 weeks, and 86.2% of them (25/29) persisted at 48 weeks. DLQI scores demonstrated that the impaired quality of life affecting the patients was improved significantly. The DLQI at baseline (mean 19.55 ± 4.4 [range 9–26]) has decreased by 24 weeks (mean 12.4 ± 5.08 [range 4–24]; p < 0.001) and 48 weeks (mean 11.8 ± 5.87 [range 2–25]; p < 0.001). Obesity (body mass index > 30), smoking, hypertension, disease duration, and primary adalimumab failure were negatively associated with HiSCR achievement and DLQI improvement. Adverse events were in line with the drug’s known safety profile. Conclusion: Infliximab showed significant clinical efficacy in adalimumab‐unresponsive HS patients. Initiation of treatment at an early stage and management of modifiable risk factors like obesity and smoking can maximize the outcomes. These findings provide evidence to endorse the use of infliximab as an effective alternative treatment for HS after failure with adalimumab.