Artificial Intelligence for Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, several studies have shown that potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in dermatology. However, there has yet to be a systematic review evaluating the usage of AI specifically within the field of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). OBJECTIVE: In this review, we aimed to comprehensively evaluate the current state, efficacy, and future implications of AI when applied to MMS for the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines across several databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane libraries. A predefined protocol was registered in PROSPERO, with literature search involving specific keywords related to AI and Mohs surgery for NMSC. RESULTS: From 23 studies evaluated, our results find that AI shows promise as a prediction tool for precisely identifying NMSC in tissue sections during MMS. Furthermore, high AUC and concordance values were also found across the various usages of AI in MMS, including margin control, surgical recommendations, similarity metrics, and in the prediction of stage and construction complexity. CONCLUSION: The findings of this review suggest promising potential for AI to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of Mohs surgery, particularly for NMSC.
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 | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".