ArticleThe Journal of investigative dermatology2023
Improving Artificial Intelligence-Based Diagnosis on Pediatric Skin Lesions.
Article in The Journal of investigative dermatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence versus 263 pediatric clinicians for childhood exanthems.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Advancements in artificial intelligence for atopic dermatitis: diagnosis, treatment, and patient management.Annals of medicine · 2025Review
- Deep Learning and Multidisciplinary Imaging in Pediatric Surgical Oncology: A Scoping Review.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Perspectives and Challenges of Telemedicine and Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Dermatology.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Applied artificial intelligence for global child health: Addressing biases and barriers.PLOS digital health · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence algorithms to classify melanoma are dependent on their training data, which limits generalizability. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of an artificial intelligence model trained on a standard adult-predominant dermoscopic dataset before and after the addition of additional pediatric training images. The performances were compared using held-out adult and pediatric test sets of images. We trained two models: one (model A) on an adult-predominant dataset (37,662 images from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration) and the other (model A+P) on an additional 1,536 pediatric images. We compared performance between the two models on adult and pediatric held-out test images separately using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. We then used Gradient-weighted Class Activation Maps and background skin masking to understand the contributions of the lesion versus background skin to algorithm decision making. Adding images from a pediatric population with different epidemiological and visual patterns to current reference standard datasets improved algorithm performance on pediatric images without diminishing performance on adult images. This suggests a way that dermatologic artificial intelligence models can be made more generalizable. The presence of background skin was important to the pediatric-specific improvement seen between models. Our study highlights the importance of carefully curated and labeled data from diverse inputs to improve the generalizability of AI models for dermatology, in this case applied to dermoscopic images of adult and pediatric lesions to improve melanoma detection.
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.