ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Evaluating No-Code and Low-Code Platforms for Medical Image Classification: A Systematic Review.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The adoption of artificial intelligence in clinical practice is often limited by the technical complexity of model development, particularly for medical professionals without programming expertise. This study aims to evaluate and compare existing no-code and low-code AI platforms for medical image classification, while also demonstrating to clinicians how AI tools can be practically implemented without having technical expertise. In this work, a systematic evaluation of such platforms applied to the classification of skin diseases based on dermoscopic images. A repository of 34 no-code and low-code platforms available on the internet was gathered. By setting specific criteria for inclusion, supporting image classification, being user-friendly, being useful in healthcare, and serving as a deployment solution, the AI research team narrowed down the list from 22 to 17 then just five platforms for further exploration. In this paper, a standardized dataset that includes around 8000 labeled thermoscopic images across eight disease categories has been used to compare the selected platforms in the literature. Teachable Machine had the lowest accuracy (85.2%) and the shortest training time, whereas Edge Impulse had the highest accuracy (89.9%), with the shortest training time, and Roboflow had the lowest accuracy (86.8%), with the longest training time. The key contributions of the study are a systematic survey of available no-code and low-code AI services to classify skin disease images, a performance analysis, training efficiency, and usability trade-offs, and practical recommendations on how clinicians and healthcare professionals can use AI tools in clinical and healthcare environments without having to possess advanced technical skills.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41912961What 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.