ArticleScientific reports2023
Predicting the severity of postoperative scars using artificial intelligence based on images and clinical data.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep Hair Phenomics: Implications in Endocrinology, Development, and Aging.The Journal of investigative dermatology · 2025Article
- Deep Learning Approaches for the Classification of Keloid Images in the Context of Malignant and Benign Skin Disorders.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Advances in intelligent recognition and diagnosis of skin scar images: concepts, methods, challenges, and future trends.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Personalized prediction model for scar response after radionuclide therapy: development and validation in a Chinese cohort.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- The Potential of Chat-Based Artificial Intelligence Models in Differentiating Between Keloid and Hypertrophic Scars: A Pilot Study.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Redo Thyroidectomy: Updated Insights.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evaluation of scar severity is crucial for determining proper treatment modalities; however, there is no gold standard for assessing scars. This study aimed to develop and evaluate an artificial intelligence model using images and clinical data to predict the severity of postoperative scars. Deep neural network models were trained and validated using images and clinical data from 1283 patients (main dataset: 1043; external dataset: 240) with post-thyroidectomy scars. Additionally, the performance of the model was tested against 16 dermatologists. In the internal test set, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) of the image-based model was 0.931 (95% confidence interval 0.910‒0.949), which increased to 0.938 (0.916‒0.955) when combined with clinical data. In the external test set, the ROC-AUC of the image-based and combined prediction models were 0.896 (0.874‒0.916) and 0.912 (0.892‒0.932), respectively. In addition, the performance of the tested algorithm with images from the internal test set was comparable with that of 16 dermatologists. This study revealed that a deep neural network model derived from image and clinical data could predict the severity of postoperative scars. The proposed model may be utilized in clinical practice for scar management, especially for determining severity and treatment initiation.
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.