Analyzing the Predictability of an Artificial Intelligence App (Tibot) in the Diagnosis of Dermatological Conditions: A Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) aims to create programs that reproduce human cognition and processes involved in interpreting complex data. Dermatology relies on morphological features and is ideal for applying AI image recognition for assisted diagnosis. Tibot is an AI app that analyzes skin conditions and works on the principle of a convolutional neural network. Appropriate research analyzing the accuracy of such apps is necessary. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze the predictability of the Tibot AI app in the identification of dermatological diseases as compared to a dermatologist. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study. After taking informed consent, photographs of lesions of patients with different skin conditions were uploaded to the app. In every condition, the AI predicted three diagnoses based on probability, and these were compared with that by a dermatologist. The ability of the AI app to predict the actual diagnosis in the top one and top three anticipated diagnoses (prediction accuracy) was used to evaluate the app's effectiveness. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value were also used to assess the app's performance. Chi-square test was used to contrast categorical variables. P<.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 600 patients were included. Clinical conditions included alopecia, acne, eczema, immunological disorders, pigmentary disorders, psoriasis, infestation, tumors, and infections. In the anticipated top three diagnoses, the app's mean prediction accuracy was 96.1% (95% CI 94.3%-97.5%), while for the exact diagnosis, it was 80.6% (95% CI 77.2%-83.7%). The prediction accuracy (top one) for alopecia, acne, pigmentary disorders, and fungal infections was 97.7%, 91.7%, 88.5%, and 82.9%, respectively. Prediction accuracy (top three) for alopecia, eczema, and tumors was 100%. The sensitivity and specificity of the app were 97% (95% CI 95%-98%) and 98% (95% CI 98%-99%), respectively. There is a statistically significant association between clinical and AI-predicted diagnoses in all conditions (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The AI app has shown promising results in diagnosing various dermatological conditions, and there is great potential for practical applicability.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".