Deep learning-aided decision support for diagnosis of skin disease across skin tones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although advances in deep learning systems for image-based medical diagnosis demonstrate their potential to augment clinical decision-making, the effectiveness of physician-machine partnerships remains an open question, in part because physicians and algorithms are both susceptible to systematic errors, especially for diagnosis of underrepresented populations. Here we present results from a large-scale digital experiment involving board-certified dermatologists (n = 389) and primary-care physicians (n = 459) from 39 countries to evaluate the accuracy of diagnoses submitted by physicians in a store-and-forward teledermatology simulation. In this experiment, physicians were presented with 364 images spanning 46 skin diseases and asked to submit up to four differential diagnoses. Specialists and generalists achieved diagnostic accuracies of 38% and 19%, respectively, but both specialists and generalists were four percentage points less accurate for the diagnosis of images of dark skin as compared to light skin. Fair deep learning system decision support improved the diagnostic accuracy of both specialists and generalists by more than 33%, but exacerbated the gap in the diagnostic accuracy of generalists across skin tones. These results demonstrate that well-designed physician-machine partnerships can enhance the diagnostic accuracy of physicians, illustrating that success in improving overall diagnostic accuracy does not necessarily address bias.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".