Use of Artificial Intelligence as a Predictor of the Response to Treatment in Alopecia Areata
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged in dermatology with some studies focusing on skin disorders such as skin cancer, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and onychomycosis. Alopecia areata (AA) is a dermatological disease whose prevalence is 0.7%-3% in the United States, and is characterized by oval areas of nonscarring hair loss of the scalp or body without evident clinical variables to predict its response to the treatment. Nonetheless, some studies suggest a predictive value of trichoscopic features in the evaluation of treatment responses. Assuming that black dots, broken hairs, exclamation marks, and tapered hairs are markers of negative predictive value of the treatment response, while yellow dots are markers of no response to treatment according to recent studies, the absence of these trichoscopic features could indicate favorable disease evolution without treatment or even predict its response. Nonetheless, no studies have reportedly evaluated the role of AI in AA on the basis of trichoscopic features. Objective This study aimed to develop an AI algorithm to predict, using trichoscopic images, those patients diagnosed with AA with a better disease evolution. Methods In total, 80 trichoscopic images were included and classified in those with or without features of negative prognosis. Using a data augmentation technique, they were multiplied to 179 images to train an AI algorithm, as previously carried out with dermoscopic images of skin tumors with a favorable response. Subsequently, 82 new images of AA were presented to the algorithm, and the algorithm classified these patients as responders and non-responders; this process was reviewed by an expert trichologist observer and presented a concordance higher than 90% with the algorithm identifying structures described previously. Evolution of the cases was followed up to truly determine their response to treatment and, therefore, to assess the predictive value of the algorithm. Results In total, 32 of 40 (80%) images of patients predicted as nonresponders scarcely showed response to the treatment, while 34 of 42 (81%) images of those predicted as responders showed a favorable response to the treatment. Conclusions The development of an AI algorithm or tool could be useful to predict AA evolution and its response to treatment. However, further research is needed, including larger sample images or trained algorithms, by using images previously classified in accordance with the disease evolution and not with trichoscopic features. 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".