ArticleContact dermatitis2026
AI-Assisted Automated Two-Stage Patch Test Interpretation System Using Vision Transformer.
Article in Contact dermatitis, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatch testing, the gold standard for allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) diagnosis, suffers from inter-observer variability. We developed a Vision Transformer-based automated patch test interpretation system.
methodsThis retrospective two-centre study included 424 patients (734 images) using the Korean Standard Series (25 allergens). Four model variants-3-class and 6-class classification, each with one-stage and two-stage (binary segmentation + classification) processing-were compared. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using Cohen's κ. Performance metrics included accuracy, balanced accuracy, macro F1-score, PPV, and NPV, with 95% CIs by bootstrap resampling.
resultsInter-rater agreement showed substantial variability (κ: 0.393-0.557). DeiT demonstrated generally favourable performance compared to CNN architectures in binary classification, achieving higher accuracy than Xception (96.1% vs. 92.3%) and substantially higher recall than ResNet-50 (88.0% vs. 66.9%). For 3-class classification, one-stage and two-stage approaches performed comparably (accuracy 92.9% vs. 92.8%, balanced accuracy 88.0% vs. 86.8%, all p > 0.05). For 6-class classification, two-stage processing was superior (accuracy 91.6% vs. 86.0%, balanced accuracy 70.1% vs. 67.5%, p < 0.001). Institution-stratified analysis confirmed robustness across different test marking conventions.
conclusionThe 3-class approach offers robust performance with implementation flexibility, whilst 6-class classification requires two-stage processing. Consistent performance across a dataset with heterogeneous imaging conditions supports real-world applicability in ACD management.
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.