Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36922556›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence in improving skin lesion diagnosis in primary care.

Anna Escalé-Besa, Oriol Yélamos, Josep Vidal-Alaball, Aïna Fuster-Casanovas, Queralt Miró Catalina, Alexander Börve, Ricardo Ander-Egg Aguilar, Xavier Fustà-Novell, Xavier Cubiró, Mireia Esquius Rafat and 2 more

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Improving Clinical Reliability of Diffusion-Based Dermatology Image Synthesis Through Synthetic Note Alignment and Post-Generation Filtering.IEEE International Conference on Omni-layer Intelligent Systems : COINS. IEEE International Conference on Omni-layer Intelligent Systems · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. AI and Primary Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. AI in Aesthetic/Cosmetic Dermatology: Current and Future.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025
    Review
  19. The Use of Artificial Intelligence to Detect Malignant Skin Lesions.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2024
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Anna Escalé-BesaCentre d'Atenció Primària Navàs-Balsareny, Institut Català de la Salut, Navàs, Spain.
Oriol YélamosDermatology Department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Josep Vidal-AlaballHealth Promotion in Rural Areas Research Group, Gerència Territorial de la Catalunya Central, Institut Català de la Salut, Sant Fruitós de Bages, Spain. jvidal.cc.ics@gencat.cat.
Aïna Fuster-CasanovasHealth Promotion in Rural Areas Research Group, Gerència Territorial de la Catalunya Central, Institut Català de la Salut, Sant Fruitós de Bages, Spain.
Queralt Miró CatalinaHealth Promotion in Rural Areas Research Group, Gerència Territorial de la Catalunya Central, Institut Català de la Salut, Sant Fruitós de Bages, Spain.
Alexander BörveiDoc24 Inc, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Ricardo Ander-Egg AguilariDoc24 Inc, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Xavier Fustà-NovellFundació Althaia de Manresa, Manresa, Spain.
Xavier CubiróServei de Dermatologia, Hospital Universitari Mollet, Mollet del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain.
Mireia Esquius RafatFundació Althaia de Manresa, Manresa, Spain.
Cristina López-SanchezDermatology Department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Francesc X Marin-GomezHealth Promotion in Rural Areas Research Group, Gerència Territorial de la Catalunya Central, Institut Català de la Salut, Sant Fruitós de Bages, Spain.
Institut Català de la Salut · ESAlthaia · ESBiomedical Research Institute · USHospital de Sant Pau · ESInstitut de Seguretat Pública de Catalunya · ESSahlgrenska University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dermatological conditions are a relevant health problem. Machine learning (ML) models are increasingly being applied to dermatology as a diagnostic decision support tool using image analysis, especially for skin cancer detection and disease classification. The objective of this study was to perform a prospective validation of an image analysis ML model, which is capable of screening 44 skin diseases, comparing its diagnostic accuracy with that of General Practitioners (GPs) and teledermatology (TD) dermatologists in a real-life setting. Prospective, diagnostic accuracy study including 100 consecutive patients with a skin problem who visited a participating GP in central Catalonia, Spain, between June 2021 and October 2021. The skin issue was first assessed by the GPs. Then an anonymised skin disease picture was taken and uploaded to the ML application, which returned a list with the Top-5 possible diagnosis in order of probability. The same image was then sent to a dermatologist via TD for diagnosis, as per clinical practice. The GPs Top-3, ML model's Top-5 and dermatologist's Top-3 assessments were compared to calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of the ML models. The overall Top-1 accuracy of the ML model (39%) was lower than that of GPs (64%) and dermatologists (72%). When the analysis was limited to the diagnoses on which the algorithm had been explicitly trained (n = 82), the balanced Top-1 accuracy of the ML model increased (48%) and in the Top-3 (75%) was comparable to the GPs Top-3 accuracy (76%). The Top-5 accuracy of the ML model (89%) was comparable to the dermatologist Top-3 accuracy (90%). For the different diseases, the sensitivity of the model (Top-3 87% and Top-5 96%) is higher than that of the clinicians (Top-3 GPs 76% and Top-3 dermatologists 84%) only in the benign tumour pathology group, being on the other hand the most prevalent category (n = 53). About the satisfaction of professionals, 92% of the GPs considered it as a useful diagnostic support tool (DST) for the differential diagnosis and in 60% of the cases as an aid in the final diagnosis of the skin lesion. The overall diagnostic accuracy of the model in this study, under real-life conditions, is lower than that of both GPs and dermatologists. This result aligns with the findings of few existing prospective studies conducted under real-life conditions. The outcomes emphasize the significance of involving clinicians in the training of the model and the capability of ML models to assist GPs, particularly in differential diagnosis. Nevertheless, external testing in real-life conditions is crucial for data validation and regulation of these AI diagnostic models before they can be used in primary care.

Indexed as

Skin DiseasesSkin NeoplasmsArtificial IntelligenceHumansPrimary Health CareProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID36922556
PMCPMC10015524
OpenAlexW4327681854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read1
measurements read34
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.