Efficacy of an Artificial Intelligence App (Aysa) in Dermatological Diagnosis: Cross-Sectional Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Dermatology is an ideal specialty for artificial intelligence (AI)–driven image recognition to improve diagnostic accuracy and patient care. Lack of dermatologists in many parts of the world and the high frequency of cutaneous disorders and malignancies highlight the increasing need for AI-aided diagnosis. Although AI-based applications for the identification of dermatological conditions are widely available, research assessing their reliability and accuracy is lacking. Objective The aim of this study was to analyze the efficacy of the Aysa AI app as a preliminary diagnostic tool for various dermatological conditions in a semiurban town in India. Methods This observational cross-sectional study included patients over the age of 2 years who visited the dermatology clinic. Images of lesions from individuals with various skin disorders were uploaded to the app after obtaining informed consent. The app was used to make a patient profile, identify lesion morphology, plot the location on a human model, and answer questions regarding duration and symptoms. The app presented eight differential diagnoses, which were compared with the clinical diagnosis. The model’s performance was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and F1-score. Comparison of categorical variables was performed with the χ2 test and statistical significance was considered at P<.05. Results A total of 700 patients were part of the study. A wide variety of skin conditions were grouped into 12 categories. The AI model had a mean top-1 sensitivity of 71% (95% CI 61.5%-74.3%), top-3 sensitivity of 86.1% (95% CI 83.4%-88.6%), and all-8 sensitivity of 95.1% (95% CI 93.3%-96.6%). The top-1 sensitivities for diagnosis of skin infestations, disorders of keratinization, other inflammatory conditions, and bacterial infections were 85.7%, 85.7%, 82.7%, and 81.8%, respectively. In the case of photodermatoses and malignant tumors, the top-1 sensitivities were 33.3% and 10%, respectively. Each category had a strong correlation between the clinical diagnosis and the probable diagnoses (P<.001). Conclusions The Aysa app showed promising results in identifying most dermatoses.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".