ArticleCommunications medicine2025
Using deep learning systems for diagnosing common skin lesions in sexual health.
Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Commercial Large Language Models for Anogenital Skin Lesion Images: A Comparative Study of Gemini, Claude, and ChatGPT.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Fungal recognition in vaginal discharge using deep learning analysis of mobile device-acquired microscopic images.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Impact of Result Displays in an Anogenital Symptom Checker App on Health-seeking Behaviours: A Cross-sectional, Vignette-based Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- What Do People Want from an AI-Assisted Screening App for Sexually Transmitted Infection-Related Anogenital Lesions: A Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2025Article
- Accuracy of symptom checker for the diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections using machine learning and Bayesian network algorithms.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly identification and treatment of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) prevents complications and improves STI control. However, there are obstacles to delivering accessible care, particularly for genital conditions.
methodsWe developed a deep learning system (DLS) using 15,891 clinical images from public repositories and the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre (MSHC) to classify 33 anogenital dermatological conditions, including STIs and non-STIs. We prospectively collected 336 images to evaluate the DLS's accuracy and compared it to the clinician diagnosis. We also evaluated whether DLS recommendations aligned with clinical urgency for seeking care based on the diagnosis.
resultsOn the hold-out test dataset, the DLS achieves an accuracy of 59.2% (top-1) (standard deviation (SD) 0.7%) and the correct diagnosis is included in the top five diagnoses (top-5) with an accuracy of 82.1% (SD 13.3%). On the 8-month prospective dataset at MSHC, the DLS achieves a top-1 accuracy of 52.1%, top-3 of 73.8%, and top-5 of 89.9%. The performance varies across 33 diagnoses, with the majority (77%) of the diagnoses achieving over 80.0% for top-5 accuracy. The DLS recommendation based on top-5 diagnoses for seeking care maintains 100% sensitivity for urgent cases (e.g. syphilis) but a lower positive predictive value (59.5%). The recommendation based on top-1 diagnosis provides more balanced sensitivity (85.0%) and PPV (80.5%).
conclusionsThe DLS demonstrates satisfactory statistical accuracy that would have been inadequate for clinical use. Future work should evaluate the DLS's performance across expanded populations and skin conditions from multiple clinics in different countries and determine how such tools could be used for the public good.
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.