Artificial Intelligence Support for Skin Lesion Triage in Primary Care and Dermatology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".