SynthesisThe British journal of dermatology2025
Assessing the performance of artificial intelligence models in evaluating inflammatory skin disease severity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The British journal of dermatology, 2025. 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.
- The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Dermatology: A Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance, Clinical Applications, and Implementation Challenges (2003-2025).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Dermatology Among Saudi Adults: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) applications in dermatology have expanded beyond diagnosis and have shifted towards assessing disease severity.
objectivesTo qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the performance of image-based AI models in severity assessment for various skin diseases.
methodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we collected studies using four electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore and Web of Science, published from 1 January 2017 to 6 April 2023, and updated the search in November 2023. Studies assessing the performance of deep learning AI models on the severity of skin diseases were included. We excluded studies that utilized a nonvalidated severity index, lacked clinical images, and assessed wounds, ulcers or burns. Two independent reviewers extracted prespecified study characteristics for the summary table. For the meta-analysis, contingency tables were extracted, when possible, and reconstructed for each severity measure. Accuracy was calculated using a bivariate model in Metandi package, and meta-regression was performed by disease type and scoring system. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023487228).
resultsOur initial search identified 7737 records. After duplicate removal and abstract screening, we reviewed the full text of 192 articles and included 45 studies for systematic review and 19 for meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of AI models were 80.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 76.2-84.2] and 96.2% (95% CI 94.9-97.2), respectively. Moreover, pooled sensitivity differed by disease (atopic dermatitis 91.8% vs. acne 80.7%, P = 0.005; acne 80.4% vs. psoriasis 71.1%, P = 0.044) and scoring system [Eczema Area and Severity Index 97.3% vs. Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) for atopic dermatitis 78.9%, P < 0.001; Hayashi Grading 89.7% vs. IGA for acne 69.8%, P < 0.001].
conclusionsOur findings show that current AI models exhibit a high level of capacity in disease severity assessment. Nevertheless, efforts are urgently needed to improve transparency in data reporting and conduct high-quality prospective studies using objective reference standards in clinical settings to generate reliable evidence.
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.