ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2024
Differences Between Patient and Clinician-Taken Images: Implications for Virtual Care of Skin Conditions.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital 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.
- Consumer Understanding of Skin Concerns With an AI-Powered Informational Tool.JAMA dermatology · 2026Trial
- Closing the AI generalisation gap by adjusting for dermatology condition distribution differences across clinical settings.EBioMedicine · 2025Article
- Creating an Empirical Dermatology Dataset Through Crowdsourcing With Web Search Advertisements.JAMA network open · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To understand and highlight the differences in clinical, demographic, and image quality characteristics between patient-taken (PAT) and clinic-taken (CLIN) photographs of skin conditions. Patients and Methods: This retrospective study applied logistic regression to data from 2500 deidentified cases in Stanford Health Care's eConsult system, from November 2015 to January 2021. Cases with undiagnosable or multiple conditions or cases with both patient and clinician image sources were excluded, leaving 628 PAT cases and 1719 CLIN cases. Demographic characteristic factors, such as age and sex were self-reported, whereas anatomic location, estimated skin type, clinical signs and symptoms, condition duration, and condition frequency were summarized from patient health records. Image quality variables such as blur, lighting issues and whether the image contained skin, hair, or nails were estimated through a deep learning model. Results: Factors that were positively associated with CLIN photographs, post-2020 were as follows: age 60 years or older, darker skin types (eFST V/VI), and presence of skin growths. By contrast, factors that were positively associated with PAT photographs include conditions appearing intermittently, cases with blurry photographs, photographs with substantial nonskin (or nail/hair) regions and cases with more than 3 photographs. Within the PAT cohort, older age was associated with blurry photographs. Conclusion: There are various demographic, clinical, and image quality characteristic differences between PAT and CLIN photographs of skin concerns. The demographic characteristic differences present important considerations for improving digital literacy or access, whereas the image quality differences point to the need for improved patient education and better image capture workflows, particularly among elderly patients.
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.