Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38893694›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Can Artificial Intelligence "Hold" a Dermoscope?-The Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence Chatbot to Translate the Dermoscopic Language.

Emmanouil Karampinis, Olga Toli, Konstantina-Eirini Georgopoulou, Elli Kampra, Christina Spyridonidou, Angeliki-Victoria Roussaki Schulze, Efterpi Zafiriou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Concordance in Basal Cell Carcinoma Diagnosis. Building a Proper Standard Reference to Train Artificial Intelligence Tools.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) · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. 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

7 authors.

Emmanouil KarampinisDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University General Hospital of Larissa, University of Thessaly, 41110 Larissa, Greece.ORCID 0009-0007-4130-3306
Olga ToliDepartment of Dermatology, Oncoderm Center One Day Clinic, 45332 Ioannina, Greece.ORCID 0009-0007-4278-4025
Konstantina-Eirini GeorgopoulouDepartment of Dermatology, General Hospital of West Attica "Agia Varvara", 12351 Athens, Greece.
Elli KampraDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University General Hospital of Larissa, University of Thessaly, 41110 Larissa, Greece.
Christina SpyridonidouDepartment of Dermatology, Athens Naval Hospital, 11521 Athens, Greece.
Angeliki-Victoria Roussaki SchulzeDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University General Hospital of Larissa, University of Thessaly, 41110 Larissa, Greece.
Efterpi ZafiriouDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University General Hospital of Larissa, University of Thessaly, 41110 Larissa, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-6594-7292

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This survey represents the first endeavor to assess the clarity of the dermoscopic language by a chatbot, unveiling insights into the interplay between dermatologists and AI systems within the complexity of the dermoscopic language. Given the complex, descriptive, and metaphorical aspects of the dermoscopic language, subjective interpretations often emerge. The survey evaluated the completeness and diagnostic efficacy of chatbot-generated reports, focusing on their role in facilitating accurate diagnoses and educational opportunities for novice dermatologists. A total of 30 participants were presented with hypothetical dermoscopic descriptions of skin lesions, including dermoscopic descriptions of skin cancers such as BCC, SCC, and melanoma, skin cancer mimickers such as actinic and seborrheic keratosis, dermatofibroma, and atypical nevus, and inflammatory dermatosis such as psoriasis and alopecia areata. Each description was accompanied by specific clinical information, and the participants were tasked with assessing the differential diagnosis list generated by the AI chatbot in its initial response. In each scenario, the chatbot generated an extensive list of potential differential diagnoses, exhibiting lower performance in cases of SCC and inflammatory dermatoses, albeit without statistical significance, suggesting that the participants were equally satisfied with the responses provided. Scores decreased notably when practical descriptions of dermoscopic signs were provided. Answers to BCC scenario scores in the diagnosis category (2.9 ± 0.4) were higher than those with SCC (2.6 ± 0.66,

Indexed as

artificial intelligencechatbotsdermoscopydifferential diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID38893694
PMCPMC11171543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.