MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121137866 · doi:10.1111/dth.14811

How good is artificial intelligence (AI) at solving hairy problems? A review of AI applications in hair restoration and hair disorders

2021· review· en· W3121137866 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatologic Therapy · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMediprobe Research (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHair lossHair growthArtificial intelligenceScalpApplications of artificial intelligenceDeep learningComputer scienceDermatologyPhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications in medicine are rapidly evolving. Deep learning diagnostic models that can accurately classify skin lesions have been developed. New AI applications are also starting to emerge in the hair restoration field. The objective was to review the current and future clinical applications of AI in hair restoration and hair disorder diagnosis. Current AI applications in hair restoration include fully automated systems for hair detection and hair growth measurement. New deep learning-based systems have been proposed for scalp diagnosis and automated hair loss measurements, including devices that can be used for self-diagnosis. Hair restoration experts should recognize the potential benefits and limitations of these emerging technologies as they become more readily available to both clinicians and patients.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it