MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200062056 · doi:10.2196/35395

Artificial Intelligence Support for Skin Lesion Triage in Primary Care and Dermatology

2021· article· en· W4200062056 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Harmony Thompson, Amanda Oakley, Michael B. Jameson, Adrian Bowling

Bibliographic record

VenueIproceedings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriageMedicineMedical diagnosisTeledermatologyObservational studyGold standard (test)Skin cancerSkin lesionDermatologyRadiologyHealth careCancerInternal medicineTelemedicineEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Primary care providers, dermatology specialists, and health care access are key components of primary prevention, early diagnosis, and treatment of skin cancer. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers the promise of diagnostic support for nonspecialists, but real-world clinical validation of AI in primary care is lacking. Objective We aimed to (1) assess the reliability of an AI-based clinical triage algorithm in classifying benign and malignant skin lesions and (2) evaluate the quality of images obtained in primary care using the study camera (3Gen DermLite Cam v4 or similar). Methods This was a single-center, prospective, double-blinded observational study with a predetermined study design. We recruited participants with suspected skin cancer in 20 primary care practices who were referred for assessment via teledermatology. A second set of photographs taken using a standardized camera was processed by the AI algorithm. We evaluated the image quality and compared two teledermatologists’ diagnoses by consensus (the “gold standard”) with AI and histology where applicable. Results Our primary outcome assessment stratified 391 skin lesions by management as benign, uncertain, or malignant. Uncertain lesions were not included in the sensitivity and specificity analyses. Uncertain lesions included lesions that had either diagnostic or management uncertainties. For the remaining 242 lesions, the sensitivity was 97.26% (95% CI 93.13%-99.25%) and the specificity was 97.92% (95% CI 92.68%-99.75%). The AI algorithm was compared with the histological diagnoses for 123 lesions. The sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 95.85%-100%) and the specificity was 72.22% (95% CI 54.81%-85.80%). Conclusions The AI algorithm demonstrates encouraging results, with high sensitivity and specificity, concordant with previous AI studies. It shows potential as a triage tool in conjunction with teledermatology to augment health care and improve access to dermatology. Further real-life studies need to be conducted on a larger scale to assess the reliability, usability, and cost-effectiveness of the algorithm in primary care. Acknowledgments MoleMap NZ, who developed the AI algorithm, provided some funding for this study. HT's salary was partially sponsored by MoleMap NZ, who developed the AI algorithm. AB is a shareholder and consultant to Molemap Ltd provider of the AI algorithm. Conflicts of Interest None declared.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIproceedingsSame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207