ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2026
Comparison of artificial intelligence and rheumatologists in nailfold capillaroscopic evaluation.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a pretrained Vision Transformer model on nailfold capillaroscopy images, comparing its performance to that of expert rheumatologists.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 104 anonymized images (23 normal, 81 pathological) from publicly available datasets. The pretrained Vision Transformer model was applied without fine-tuning. Two rheumatologists independently assessed the same image set. Accuracy and interrater agreement were calculated.
resultsThe AI model produced 0% clinical applicability, failing to generate meaningful classifications. In contrast, the consensus of two rheumatologists achieved the highest diagnostic performance, with 94.2% accuracy and a Cohen's Kappa of 0.827. Individual rheumatologist evaluations yielded comparatively lower accuracy and agreement.
conclusionWe retrospectively analyzed X anonymized images (XX normal, XX pathological) from publicly available datasets. The pretrained Vision Transformer model was applied without fine-tuning. Two rheumatologists independently assessed the same image set. Accuracy and interrater agreement were calculated.
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.