ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Human expertise or artificial intelligence? A prospective study on nail disorder diagnosis.
Article in NPJ digital 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) shows promise in analyzing patterns of nail disease. This prospective, comparative study compared the diagnostic performance of dermatologists with that of large language models (LLMs). We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of dermatologists and four freely available multimodal LLMs (GPT-4o, Grok 3, Claude Sonnet 4, and Gemini 2.5 Flash) using clinical images of nail diseases. Seventeen dermatologists correctly diagnosed the primary suspected diagnosis (SD) in 70.6% (95% CI: 65.5-75.2) of cases, and in 80.3% (95% CI: 75.7-84.2) of cases when considering both the SD and the differential diagnosis (SD + DD). Accuracy increased across dermatologist groups, ranging from residents (68.3% for SD + DD) to nail disease experts (96.0%). In comparison, AI models were correct in 25.0% (95% CI: 16.8-35.5) and 35.0% (95% CI: 25.5-45.9) of cases, respectively (p < 0.001). The AI algorithms correctly classified 13.9% of tumors and 52.3% of non-tumors (SD + DD, p < 0.001). Current freely available general-purpose AI models demonstrated limited reliability for standalone nail disease diagnosis in this exploratory setting and should not be used without clinical supervision. While these systems may assist in suggesting differential diagnoses, their performance remains variable and requires further validation in larger, clinically representative datasets.
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.