ArticlePeerJ2022
A novel multi-layer perceptron model for assessing the diagnostic value of non-invasive imaging instruments for rosacea.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping cutaneous field carcinogenesis of nonmelanoma skin cancer using mesoscopic imaging of pro-inflammation cues.Experimental dermatology · 2024Review
- A retrospective study on VISIA of telangiectasia network in 378 cases of rosacea of the upper eyelid.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM), VISIA, and dermoscopy have emerged as promising tools for objective diagnosis and assessment of rosacea. However, little is known about the diagnostic value of these imaging systems for rosacea. Objectives: To assess the diagnostic value of RCM, VISIA, and dermoscopy for rosacea by establishing a novel multilayer perceptron (MLP) model. Methods: A total of 520 patients with rosacea and other facial diseases were included in this study. A total of 474 samples of dermoscopy data, 374 samples of RCM data, 434 samples of VISIA data, and 291 samples containing three data sources were collected. An MLP model was built with the total data to explore the association between the imageological features of each instrument and the probability of rosacea. Results: Our MLP model revealed that the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) values of RCM, VISIA and dermoscopy for diagnosing rosacea were 0.5233, 0.5646 and 0.7971, respectively. The integration of these three tools with clinical data could further improve the accuracy of the predictive diagnosis to 0.8385. For the imageological features of each tool, abnormalities (hyperkeratosis or parakeratosis) in the stratum corneum were effective variables for excluding rosacea (odds ratio [OR], 0.4333) under RCM. The indicators of rosacea under VISIA included overall severity of erythema, erythema involving the cheek or superciliary arch, visible red blood vessels, and papules (OR = 2.2745, 3.1592, 1.8365, 2.8647, and 1.4260, respectively). The candidate variables of dermoscopy included yellow background, white background, uniform distribution of vessels, branched vessels, and reticular blood vessels (OR = 0.4259, 0.4949, 2.2858, 3.7444, and 2.4576, respectively). Conclusions: RCM, dermoscopy, and VISIA each can present several imageological features and were of certain value for assisting rosacea diagnosis. The combined analysis of these three tools using our MLP model may be useful for improving the accuracy of diagnosing rosacea.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.