ArticleSkin 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)2025
Concordance in Basal Cell Carcinoma Diagnosis. Building a Proper Standard Reference to Train Artificial Intelligence Tools.
Article in 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), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- MultiTask learning AI system to assist BCC diagnosis with dual explanation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Concordance in Basal Cell Carcinoma Diagnosis. Building a Proper Standard Reference to Train Artificial Intelligence Tools.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) · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundReliable labels are essential when training Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools. Whereas some diseases allow biopsy-based labeling, others rely on subjective criteria. For the diagnosis of basal cell carcinoma (BCC), dermatologists detect certain dermoscopic criteria, whose presence (or absence) serves as the basis for determining a diagnosis of BCC. Therefore, an AI tool assisting in BCC diagnosis should provide such criteria to explain its output. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study analyzes the agreement among four dermatologists in detecting dermoscopic criteria and compares the performance of an AI model trained with labels from a single dermatologist versus a consensus-based standard. A total of1230 dermoscopic images, collected in around 60 primary health centers, sent via teledermatology, and diagnosed by four dermatologists, were used to train an AI tool. They were randomly selected from the teledermatology platform (2019-2021). Subsequently, 204 new images were used to test the AI tool prospectively. A standard reference (SR) was built using Expectation Maximization on the four diagnoses. The performance of the AI tool trained using the reference standard of one dermatologist versus the reference standard statistically inferred from the consensus of four dermatologists was analyzed using McNemar's test and Hamming distance.
resultsAgreement among dermatologists was high for BCC versus non-BCC (Kappa = 0.9079; PPV = 0.9670), but lower for specific criteria. Statistical differences were found in the performance of AI models trained with individual and consensus labels.
conclusionDeriving an SR from multiple expert opinions mitigates individual bias and enhances AI interpretability, key for its clinical adoption.
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.