Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41127892›Full record

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.

Francisca Silva-Clavería, Carmen Serrano, Iván Matas, Amalia Serrano, Tomás Toledo-Pastrana, Begoña Acha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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) · 2025
    Article
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

6 authors.

Francisca Silva-ClaveríaDermatology Service, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Seville, Spain.
Carmen SerranoDepartment of Signal Theory and Communications, Escuela Técnica Superior De Ingeniería, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain.
Iván MatasDepartment of Signal Theory and Communications, Escuela Técnica Superior De Ingeniería, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain.
Amalia SerranoDermatology Service, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Seville, Spain.
Tomás Toledo-PastranaQuironsalud Hospitales Infanta Luisa y Sagrado Corazón, Seville, Spain.
Begoña AchaDepartment of Signal Theory and Communications, Escuela Técnica Superior De Ingeniería, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain.

Funding

Consejería de Conocimiento, Investigación y Universidad. Junta de Andalucía PROYEXCEL_00889European Regional Development FundMinisterio de ciencia e innovación, Gobierno de España PID2021-127871OB-I00
6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceBasal Cell CarcinomaDermoscopySkin NeoplasmsDermatologistsDermatologyHumansObserver VariationReference StandardsTelemedicineartificial intelligence (AI)basal cell carcinomadermoscopic patterndiagnosis agreementreference standard inference

Identifiers

PMID41127892
PMCPMC12547353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.