Demonstration of Convolutional Neural Networks to Determine Patch Test Reactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Background: Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have the potential to assist allergists and dermatologists in the analysis of patch tests. Such models can help reduce interprovider variability and improve consistency of patch test interpretations. Objective: Our aim is to evaluate the performance of a CNN model as a proof of concept in discriminating between patch tests with reactions and patch tests without reactions. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patch test images from March 2020 to March 2021. The CNN model was trained as a binary classifier to discriminate between reaction and nonreaction patches. Performance of the model was determined using summary statistics and receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curves. Results: In total, 13,622 images from 125 patients were recorded for analysis. The majority of patients in the cohort were female (81.6%) with Fitzpatrick skin types I–II (88.0%). The area under curve was 0.940, indicating a high discriminative performance of the model for this data set. This resulted in a total accuracy of 90.1%, sensitivity of 86.0%, and specificity of 90.2%. Conclusions: CNNs have the capacity to determine the presence of delayed-type reactions in patch tests. Future prospective studies are required to assess the generalizability of such models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".