ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Enhancing dermatological diagnosis for differentiating actinic from seborrheic keratosis using deep learning model.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Differentiating Actinic keratosis (AK) from Seborrheic keratosis (SK) can be challenging for dermatologists due to their visual similarities. This multi-center prospective study aims to investigate the efficacy of deep learning (DL) model in assisting dermatologists in accurately classifying AK from SK lesions. Methods: A contrastive language-image pre-training (CLIP) model with ViT-B/16 architecture was trained on an dataset of 2,307 patients and validated in three separate datasets of 386 (from Center A), 196 patients (from Center B and C) and 215 patients (from DermNet). Two dermatologists classified the lesions separately. Then they were showed the model's predictions and were requested to reclassify the results if needed. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the diagnostic performances of the DL model and the dermatologists before and after reclassification. The change in the dermatologists' classification decisions was also analyzed by net reclassification index (NRI) and total integrated discrimination index (IDI). Results: The model's diagnostic performance in the training cohort and validation cohort 1, 2 and 3 showed an AUC of 0.85, 0.89, 0.84, and 0.89. For dermatologist 1, the diagnostic performance improved from 0.77 to 0.80 in the test cohort with NRI and IDI of 0.10 ( Conclusion: The DL model significantly improves dermatologists' accuracy in differentiating AK from SK, especially for less experienced ones. The DL model has the potential to reduce diagnostic subjectivity, aid early detection of precancerous lesions, and transform dermatological diagnostic and therapeutic practices.
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.