ArticleRevista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health2026
Independent assessment of the WHO Skin Neglected Tropical Diseases application for leprosy detection.
Article in Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To independently evaluate the World Health Organization (WHO) Skin Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) application, focusing on the diagnostic performance of its underlying artificial intelligence model for leprosy detection. The primary objective was to determine the proportion of images in which leprosy appeared among the model's Top-5 diagnostic predictions. The secondary objective was to qualitatively analyze diagnostic error patterns. Methods: A data set of 439 anonymized clinical images from confirmed leprosy cases (1996-2024) was analyzed, spanning the full clinical spectrum (indeterminate, tuberculoid, borderline/dimorphous, and lepromatous/Virchowian forms) and including reactional and atypical presentations. After excluding 16 images due to processing errors, 423 images were retained: 367 classical leprosy lesions and 56 reactional or atypical leprosy-related presentations. All images were evaluated using the WHO desktop version of the visual classifier. Top-5 sensitivity (recall) for leprosy was estimated, alongside a qualitative error analysis focusing on intrapatient inconsistencies and challenging lesion types. Results: The model achieved an overall Top-5 sensitivity (recall) of 84.9%, with higher sensitivity for classical lesions (87.2%) than for reactional or atypical presentations (69.6%). Qualitative review revealed inconsistent predictions for visually similar lesions from the same patient, and misclassifications concentrated among necrotic, inflammatory, and infiltrative lesions. Conclusions: The WHO Skin NTDs application demonstrates substantial promise as a clinical decision-support and educational tool, especially for classical leprosy. Performance gaps for reactional and atypical forms highlight the need for algorithmic refinement. Enhancing data set diversity and integrating patient-level context may improve diagnostic robustness.
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.