Concordance and Accuracy of Teledermatology Using Mobile Phones in the Outpatient Clinic of Jose R Reyes Memorial Medical Center: Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dermatologists rely on visual findings; thus, teledermatology is uniquely compatible to providing dermatologic care. The use of mobile phones in a store-and-forward approach, where gathered data are sent to a distant health provider for later review, may be a potential bridge in seeking dermatologic care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the agreement between face-to-face consultations and teledermatologic consultations through the store-and-forward approach using mobile phones and its accuracy compared to a histopathologic diagnosis. METHODS: The study design was a cross-sectional study of participants consecutively recruited from dermatology patients who presented with skin or mucosal complaint and without prior dermatologist consultation. Photographs were taken using a standard smartphone (iPhone 6s Plus), and a 4-mm skin punch biopsy was taken on each patient-the gold standard to which the study result was compared to. The photographs were sent to 3 consultant dermatologists using a store-and-forward approach, for independent diagnosis and treatment plan. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included, with a median age of 41 years. There was moderate-to-almost perfect agreement in terms of final diagnosis between the face-to-face dermatologic diagnosis and teledermatologic diagnoses. The third teledermatologist had the highest agreement with the clinical dermatologist in terms of final diagnosis (κ=0.84; P<.001). Among the 3 dermatologists, there was moderate-to-almost perfect agreement as well. Agreement between pairs of teledermatologists ranged from 0.45 to 0.84. The 3 teledermatologists had moderate-to-substantial agreement with the biopsy results, with the third teledermatologist having the highest accuracy (κ=0.77; P<.001). Overall, there was a moderate agreement in the diagnosis of patients across raters. CONCLUSIONS: Teledermatology is a viable alternative to face-to-face consultations. Our results show moderate-to-substantial agreement in diagnoses from a face-to-face consultation and store-and-forward teledermatology.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".