ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Towards a clinically integrated artificial intelligence tool for triage of skin cancer.
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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Skin cancer is one of the most prevalent malignancies worldwide, with early detection critical to improving outcomes. However, in low-resource settings such as rural regions, limited access to dermatologists and diagnostic tools delays diagnosis. This study presents a clinical validation of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based mobile application to assist generalist healthcare professionals in skin lesion triage. The tool classifies lesions into five priority levels according to malignancy risk, following a protocol developed by dermatologists. The AI model, based on a fine-tuned MobileNet-V3 architecture, was trained on the PAD-UFES-20+ dataset (13,569 images) and integrated into an offline-capable mobile app. Internal validation achieved a sensitivity of 0.79, specificity of 0.95, and AUC of 0.95. In clinical validation across two phases, 131 healthcare professionals from nine cities participated. In Phase 1, sensitivity and specificity improved from 0.64 and 0.90 (without AI) to 0.80 and 0.92 (with AI), matching the model's standalone performance. In Phase 2, with 57 community health workers in rural areas, AI assistance increased triage effectiveness by 17% and reduced unnecessary referrals by 30%. Participant feedback was positive, highlighting increased safety and confidence. These results indicate that AI-assisted mobile triage tools can enhance diagnostic performance and healthcare efficiency in resource-limited environments.
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.