Recommendations for Better Adoption of Medical Photography as a Clinical Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of photography in routine clinical practice has the potential to increase the efficiency of overall patient care as well as improve clinical documentation and provider-to-provider communication. This is particularly important in the setting of provider burnout in the electronic health record era and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the potential of photographs to enhance workflows and patient care, challenges remain that hinder the successful incorporation of medical photography into clinical practice, often because of inconsistent structure and implementation. Our proposed consolidated framework for clinical photography consists of five key aspects: appropriate informed consent; proper preparation and positioning; image acquisition with consideration of the field of view, orientation, focus, resolution, scale, and color calibration; streamlined and secure image storage and documentation; and interoperable file exchange. Overall, this viewpoint is a forward-looking paper on leveraging medical photography as an electronic health record tool for clinical care, research, and education.
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 | 0.101 | 0.313 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.015 |
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".