ArticlePloS one2025
AI-augmented differential diagnosis of granulomatous rosacea and lupus miliaris disseminatus faciei: A 23-year retrospective pilot study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Granulomatous rosacea (GR) and lupus miliaris disseminatus faciei (LMDF) exhibit overlapping clinical features, making their differentiation challenging. While histopathological examination remains the gold standard, it is invasive and time-consuming, highlighting the need for non-invasive diagnostic approaches. This study evaluates artificial intelligence (AI)-based models for differentiating between GR and LMDF and assess their impact on clinician performance. This retrospective pilot study included 96 patients (62 GR, 34 LMDF) with histopathologically confirmed diagnoses. Neural network models, including convolutional neural networks and vision transformers (ViT), were applied to cropped lesion images while a transformer-based multiple instance learning (TransMIL) approach was used for whole-image analysis. Diagnostic accuracy was also compared between clinicians with and without AI assistance. ViT_base_patch16_224 achieved the highest accuracy (93.0%) and reliability (κ = 0.81) on cropped images, while the TransMIL reached 70% accuracy on whole images. AI augmentation significantly improved clinicians' diagnostic accuracy from 64.7% to 70.3% (p = 0.0136), with the greatest improvement observed among general practitioners. Additionally, mean diagnostic time decreased from 10.7 to 6.4 minutes. These findings highlight the potential of AI models, particularly ViT, in facilitating the differential diagnosis of GR and LMDF. AI-augmented diagnosis improved accuracy and efficiency across all clinician expertise levels, supporting its integration as a complementary tool in dermatological practice.
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.