MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379466703 · doi:10.12788/cutis.0764

Artificial Intelligence vs Medical Providers in the Dermoscopic Diagnosis of Melanoma

2023· article· en· W4379466703 on OpenAlexaff
JANE ANDERSON

Bibliographic record

VenueCutis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsEngineers Without Borders Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMelanomaTeledermatologyReferralDermatologyMelanoma diagnosisBiopsyPredictive valueDiagnostic accuracyPathologyRadiologyInternal medicineHealth careTelemedicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early diagnosis of melanoma drastically reduces morbidity and mortality; however, most skin lesions are not initially evaluated by dermatologists, and some patients may require a referral. This study sought to determine the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) application in classifying lesions as benign or malignant to determine whether AI could assist in screening potential melanoma cases. One hundred dermoscopic images (80 benign nevi and 20 biopsy-verified malignant melanomas) were assessed by an AI application as well as 23 dermatologists, 7 family physicians, and 12 primary care mid-level providers. The AI's high accuracy and positive predictive value (PPV) demonstrate that this AI application could be a reliable melanoma screening tool for providers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCutisSame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207