Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There are a number of available methods for diagnosing onychomycosis, but more emerge as technology advances. This review briefly discusses the common diagnostic methods, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) as a diagnostic tool in dermatology as a whole, and then examines research on the use of AI for diagnosing onychomycosis. The studies discussed implemented convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to examine datasets of images of entire nails or histological images and then used the information learned from those datasets to make a diagnostic decision of onychomycosis or not. RESULTS: Results: It was found that, on average, AI were able to diagnose onychomycosis from the images provided at an equivalent level as human dermatologists. However, there are a number of clear limitations for using AI in this manner. The AI models implemented relied solely on images and therefore were limited by image quality. As only images were examined, other clinical data were not taken into consideration, which could be important to the diagnostic outcome. CONCLUSION: Conclusion: In conclusion, although AI can be a very helpful tool in the diagnostic process by increasing efficiency and reducing costs, it still requires the precision and expertise of professional dermatologists to be used optimally.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".