Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40460693›Full record

ArticleEBioMedicine2025

Closing the AI generalisation gap by adjusting for dermatology condition distribution differences across clinical settings.

Rajeev V Rikhye, Aaron Loh, Grace Eunhae Hong, Preeti Singh, Margaret Ann Smith, Vijaytha Muralidharan, Doris Wong, Rory Sayres, Ayush Jain, Michelle Phung and 17 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EBioMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Artificial intelligence in dermatology: A literature review of current evidence and clinical implementation.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2026
    Review
  3. Demographic Reporting and the Absence of Hispanic/Latino Representation in Dermatology Artificial Intelligence: A Scoping Review.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) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

27 authors.

Rajeev V RikhyeGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Aaron LohGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Grace Eunhae HongStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Preeti SinghGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Margaret Ann SmithStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Vijaytha MuralidharanStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Doris WongGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Rory SayresGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Ayush JainGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Michelle PhungStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Nicolas BetancourtStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Bradley FongStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Rachna SahasrabudheStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Khoban NasimStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Alec EschholzStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Basil MustafaGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Jan FreybergGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Terry SpitzGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Yossi MatiasGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Greg S CorradoGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Katherine ChouGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Dale R WebsterGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Peggy BuiGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Yuan LiuGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Yun LiuGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA. Electronic address: liuyun@google.com.
Justin KoStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Steven LinStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. Electronic address: stevenlin@stanford.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeneralisation of artificial intelligence (AI) models to a new setting is challenging. In this study, we seek to understand the robustness of a dermatology (AI) model and whether it generalises from telemedicine cases to a new setting including both patient-submitted photographs ("PAT") and clinician-taken photographs in-clinic ("CLIN").

methodsA retrospective cohort study involving 2500 cases previously unseen by the AI model, including both PAT and CLIN cases, from 22 clinics in the San Francisco Bay Area, spanning November 2015 to January 2021. The primary outcome measure for the AI model and dermatologists was the top-3 accuracy, defined as whether their top 3 differential diagnoses contained the top reference diagnosis from a panel of dermatologists per case.

findingsThe AI performed similarly between PAT and CLIN images (74% top-3 accuracy in CLIN vs. 71% in PAT), however, dermatologists were more accurate in PAT images (79% in CLIN vs. 87% in PAT). We demonstrate that demographic factors were not associated with AI or dermatologist errors; instead several categories of conditions were associated with AI model errors (p < 0.05). Resampling CLIN and PAT to match skin condition distributions to the AI development dataset reduced the observed differences (AI: 84% CLIN vs. 79% PAT; dermatologists: 77% CLIN vs. 89% PAT). We demonstrate a series of steps to close the generalisation gap, requiring progressively more information about the new dataset, ranging from the condition distribution to additional training data for rarer conditions. When using additional training data and testing on the dataset without resampling to match AI development, we observed comparable performance from end-to-end AI model fine tuning (85% in CLIN vs. 83% in PAT) vs. fine tuning solely the classification layer on top of a frozen embedding model (86% in CLIN vs. 84% in PAT).

interpretationAI algorithms can be efficiently adapted to new settings without additional training data by recalibrating the existing model, or with targeted data acquisition for rarer conditions and retraining just the final layer.

fundingGoogle.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDermatologySkin DiseasesAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTelemedicineArtificial intelligenceDermatologyGeneralisation

Identifiers

PMID40460693
PMCPMC12167068

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.