MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280614593 · doi:10.2196/37531

Using Artificial Intelligence as a Diagnostic Decision Support Tool in Skin Disease: Protocol for an Observational Prospective Cohort Study

2022· article· en· W4280614593 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anna Escalé-Besa, Aïna Fuster‐Casanovas, Alexander Börve, Oriol Yélamos, X. Fustà‐Novell, Mireia Esquius Rafat, Francesc X Marín-Gomez, Josep Vidal‐Alaball

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studySkin cancerMedicineProtocol (science)Decision support systemDiseaseCohort studyCohortSkin lesionPrimary careHealth professionalsHealth careMedical physicsTeledermatologyArtificial intelligenceFamily medicineDermatologyComputer sciencePathologyCancerAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dermatological conditions are a relevant health problem. Each person has an average of 1.6 skin diseases per year, and consultations for skin pathology represent 20% of the total annual visits to primary care and around 35% are referred to a dermatology specialist. Machine learning (ML) models can be a good tool to help primary care professionals, as it can analyze and optimize complex sets of data. In addition, ML models are increasingly being applied to dermatology as a diagnostic decision support tool using image analysis, especially for skin cancer detection and classification. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to perform a prospective validation of an image analysis ML model as a diagnostic decision support tool for the diagnosis of dermatological conditions. METHODS: In this prospective study, 100 consecutive patients who visit a participant general practitioner (GP) with a skin problem in central Catalonia were recruited. Data collection was planned to last 7 months. Anonymized pictures of skin diseases were taken and introduced to the ML model interface (capable of screening for 44 different skin diseases), which returned the top 5 diagnoses by probability. The same image was also sent as a teledermatology consultation following the current stablished workflow. The GP, ML model, and dermatologist's assessments will be compared to calculate the precision, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the ML model. The results will be represented globally and individually for each skin disease class using a confusion matrix and one-versus-all methodology. The time taken to make the diagnosis will also be taken into consideration. RESULTS: Patient recruitment began in June 2021 and lasted for 5 months. Currently, all patients have been recruited and the images have been shown to the GPs and dermatologists. The analysis of the results has already started. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide information about ML models' effectiveness and limitations. External testing is essential for regulating these diagnostic systems to deploy ML models in a primary care practice setting.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.473
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.121 · 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.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207