The Role of Standards in Accelerating the Uptake of Artificial Intelligence in Dermatology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The use of artificial intelligence (AI) for dermatology is showing great promise in research contexts. However, the clinical use of AI in dermatology is still limited. The uptake of medical imaging standards for dermatology imaging is also limited. Standards adoption is more widespread in other imaging specialties (eg, radiology) as is the clinical use of AI. Digital Image Communication in Medicine (DICOM) is the standard for medical imaging. DICOM standardizes image formats and associated metadata. Further, DICOM facilitates interoperability between actors in the digital health ecosystem. Objective This study aimed to identify how medical imaging standards, in particular DICOM, can support the clinical use of AI. Methods Design Science Research Methodology was used to determine the role of DICOM in AI-based medical imaging workflows. Scenarios were identified and synthesized using expert consensus. Results The key benefits of using DICOM to improve the clinical use of AI were the potential to encode artefacts derived from the AI process as DICOM objects and store them alongside the original images. Such objects include downsized or down-sampled images, segmentation objects, or visual explainability maps (eg, class activation maps). DICOM can facilitate interoperability between actors in the medical imaging workflow pipeline and permits the inclusion of AI evidence creators in this pipeline. Owing to standardized image formats and metadata, DICOM can be beneficial for the curation of multi-institutional data sets. The key challenge of using DICOM is limited uptake in some specialties including dermatology. Conclusions DICOM offers potential to accelerate the clinical adoption of AI in dermatology by addressing several technological issues. More widespread uptake of DICOM in dermatology imaging is required to achieve this potential. 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 | 0.316 | 0.384 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".