Review of Machine Learning in Predicting Dermatological Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence is a broad branch of computer science that has garnered significant interest in the field of medicine because of its problem solving, decision making and pattern recognition abilities. Machine learning, a subset of artificial intelligence, hones in on the ability of computers to receive data and learn for themselves, manipulating algorithms as they organize the information they are processing. Dermatology is at a particular advantage in the implementation of machine learning due to the availability of large clinical image databases that can be used for machine training and interpretation. While numerous studies have implemented machine learning in the diagnostic aspect of dermatology, less research has been conducted on the use of machine learning in predicting long-term outcomes in skin disease, with only a few studies published to date. Such an approach would assist physicians in selecting the best treatment methods, save patients' time, reduce treatment costs and improve the quality of treatment overall by reducing the amount of trial-and-error in the treatment process. In this review, we aim to provide a brief and relevant introduction to basic artificial intelligence processes, and to consolidate and examine the published literature on the use of machine learning in predicting clinical outcomes in dermatology.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".