ArticleCureus2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Applications on a Diverse Skin Image Set.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Several new mobile applications (apps) have been developed that utilize artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin lesions. Objective The goal of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the most popular smartphone apps using a database of skin lesion images with diverse skin tones. An additional goal was to measure the apps' sensitivity and specificity in detecting skin cancer. Methods A thorough search was performed in the Google Play Store and Apple App Store to find the most popular skin apps that diagnose skin lesions. We used the Stanford Diverse Dermatology Images database (DDI) to test the accuracy of the following apps: ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA), AI skin scanner Rash Detector (by I Lov Guitars Inc., Scarborough, ON), Rash ID (Appsmiths LLC, Canton, MS USA), and Skin Scanner Dermatology & Acne (ACINA, UAB, located at Krokuvos, Vilnius, Lithuania). One hundred and two images with a range of diagnoses were selected for upload to each app. Fifty-one images were malignant, and 51 were benign. We also trained a new model of ChatGPT using a separate set of 554 images from the same database. Results All the apps had low diagnostic accuracy. The overall accuracy was 22%. When classifying benign versus malignant diagnoses, the apps had an average sensitivity of 46.57% and an average specificity of 72.06%. The average positive predictive value was 67.44%, and the average negative predictive value was 58.06%. In our study, training ChatGPT did not improve its diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions ChatGPT, Rash Detector, Rash ID, and Skin Scanner Dermatology & Acne performed poorly at diagnosing skin lesions from a database with diverse skin tones. These apps should not be used as stand-alone diagnostic tools.
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.