Diagnostic reliability in teledermatology: a systematic review and a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare teledermatology and face-to-face (F2F) agreement in primary diagnoses of dermatological conditions. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINAHL and medRxiv were searched between January 2010 and May 2022. Observational studies and randomised clinical trials that reported percentage agreement or kappa concordance for primary diagnoses between teledermatology and F2F physicians were included. Titles, abstracts and full-text articles were screened in duplicate. From 7173 citations, 44 articles were included. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate pooled estimates. Primary outcome measures were mean percentage and kappa concordance for assessing diagnostic matches between teledermatology and F2F physicians. Secondary outcome measures included the agreement between teledermatologists, F2F dermatologists, and teledermatology and histopathology results. RESULTS: 44 studies were extracted and reviewed. The pooled agreement rate was 68.9%, and kappa concordance was 0.67. When dermatologists conducted F2F and teledermatology consults, the overall diagnostic agreement was significantly higher at 71% compared with 44% for non-specialists. Kappa concordance was 0.69 for teledermatologist versus specialist and 0.52 for non-specialists. Higher diagnostic agreements were also noted with image acquisition training and digital photography. The agreement rate was 76.4% between teledermatologists, 82.4% between F2F physicians and 55.7% between teledermatology and histopathology. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Teledermatology can be an attractive option particularly in resource-poor settings. Future efforts should be placed on incorporating image acquisition training and access to high-quality imaging technologies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/FJDVG.
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 | 0.035 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".