ArticleJID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health2024
Image Quality Assessment Using Convolutional Neural Network in Clinical Skin Images.
Article in JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning-based no-reference image quality assessment framework for Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp.PloS one · 2026Article
- Development of a Novel Machine Learning Model for Automatic Assessment of Quality of Transvaginal Ultrasound Images From Multi-Annotator Labels.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2025Article
- Vision Transformers for Low-Quality Histopathological Images: A Case Study on Squamous Cell Carcinoma Margin Classification.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
The image quality received for clinical evaluation is often suboptimal. The goal is to develop an image quality analysis tool to assess patient- and primary care physician-derived images using deep learning model. Dataset included patient- and primary care physician-derived images from August 21, 2018 to June 30, 2022 with 4 unique quality labels. VGG16 model was fine tuned with input data, and optimal threshold was determined by Youden's index. Ordinal labels were transformed to binary labels using a majority vote because model distinguishes between 2 categories (good vs bad). At a threshold of 0.587, area under the curve for the test set was 0.885 (95% confidence interval = 0.838-0.933); sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 0.829, 0.784, 0.906, and 0.645, respectively. Independent validation of 300 additional images (from patients and primary care physicians) demonstrated area under the curve of 0.864 (95% confidence interval = 0.818-0.909) and area under the curve of 0.902 (95% confidence interval = 0.85-0.95), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the 300 images were 0.827, 0.800, 0.959, and 0.450, respectively. We demonstrate a practical approach improving the image quality for clinical workflow. Although users may have to capture additional images, this is offset by the improved workload and efficiency for clinical teams.
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.