Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41705408›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)2026

Implementing GPT-4 Learning Models in Dermatology: An Assessment of Medical Quality and Utility.

Aryan Naik, Peter Vien, Thanh-Nga Tran

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), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Implementing GPT-4 Learning Models in Dermatology: An Assessment of Medical Quality and Utility.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) · 2026
    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

3 authors.

Aryan NaikLarner College of Medicine, The University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5866-1637
Peter VienLarner College of Medicine, The University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Thanh-Nga TranWellman Center for Photomedicine, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence, including large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4, can generate responses to clinical queries using predictive algorithms trained on large online datasets. Current literature lacks a comprehensive assessment of the medical quality and accuracy of dermatologic GPT-4-generated outputs.

methodsA standardized query was used to ask GPT-4 models (Copilot and ChatGPT-4) to generate summaries and treatment recommendations for 33 dermatologic conditions, which were then compared to corresponding sections of UpToDate (UTD) excerpts. DISCERN scores were calculated for each source by two authors (AN and PV). Concordance between GPT-4-generated treatments and UTD was evaluated by a certified dermatologist. Word count and Flesch Kincaid reading score were generated in R. Paired t-tests and one-way and weighted ANOVA were conducted in R.

resultsThe DISCERN instrument classified UTD content as being of "fair" medical quality (mean [SD], 3.08 [0.34]), while both ChatGPT-4 and Copilot produced content of "poor" medical quality (mean [SD], 2.28 [0.22] and mean [SD], 2.31 [0.35], respectively). ChatGPT-4's treatment recommendations demonstrated 33.5% greater average concordance with UTD treatment recommendations (mean [SD], 64.89% [29.29]), in comparison to Copilot (mean [SD], 31.38% [31.08%]); (95% CI, 22.3%-44.7%, p < 0.001).

conclusionsOverall, GPT-4 models produced dermatological content with few harmful recommendations. However, GPT-4-generated content performed poorly on the DISCERN instrument, and validation of LLM-generated responses remains challenging. Results suggest LLM parameters and query structures may be optimizable for dermatologic applications. If implemented alongside the professional judgement of certified dermatologists, future LLMs may serve as time-saving dermatologic tools, enhancing patient care.

Indexed as

DermatologySkin DiseasesAlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansLarge Language ModelsAIAI in dermatologyartificial intelligenceChatGPT

Identifiers

PMID41705408
PMCPMC12914478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.