ReviewJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of pemphigus and pemphigoid groups of disorders based on clinical images: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pemphigus and pemphigoid disease pose diagnostic challenges to pathologists and clinician due to overlapping clinical and histopathological features. The systematic review evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) in identifying pemphigus and pemphigoid disorders based on clinical images, compared to conventional diagnostic techniques. Methods: A search was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases since inception using search strategy comprising of "Artificial Intelligence", "Pemphigus", "Pemphigoid", "Diagnosis", "sensitivity", "specificity", and "accuracy". Studies examined AI models' accuracy for diagnosing pemphigus and pemphigoid were included in the review. A meta-analysis was conducted using Meta-Disc software, with pooled sensitivity, specificity, and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve analysis. Results: Out of 4094 search results, five studies met the eligibility criteria after screening and selection steps. The pooled diagnostic accuracy of AI-based systems was 0.83 (CI 0.73-0.90) with a of 0.86 % (CI: 0.76-0.91) pooled sensitivity and 0.84 % (CI: 0.79-0.87) pooled specificity, reflecting its moderate effectiveness in ruling out pemphigus and pemphigoid disorders. Further, the positive likelihood ratio (PLR) was 5.34 (95 % CI: 4.05-7.05), and the negative likelihood ratio (NLR) was 0.16 (95 % CI: 0.09-0.28), with a DOR of 32.53 (95 % CI: 14.70-71.94) indicates moderate to strong accuracy. Conclusion: AI have moderate diagnostic efficacy in diagnosis of pemphigus and pemphigoid diseases. However, additional research is needed to develop standardized methodologies and ensure generalizability across different populations before integrating into clinical 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.