ArticleRheumatology international2026
Assessment of CDASI scoring by a multimodal large language model: a comparative study with expert assessors.
Article in Rheumatology international, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) with multimodal capabilities may support automated assessment of cutaneous disease activity in dermatomyositis (DM). We evaluated the performance of Claude v3.5 Sonnet in scoring the Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index (CDASI) compared with expert rheumatologists. Thirty published DM cases with available clinical images were retrospectively analyzed. Two expert rheumatologists independently scored CDASI activity and damage domains. Claude v3.5 Sonnet assessed the same images using structured prompting based on CDASI definitions. Agreement was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) with a two-way random-effects model for absolute agreement. The LLM demonstrated better agreement for activity than for damage assessment. Global CDASI activity showed good agreement with expert raters (ICC 0.71, 95% CI 0.45-0.86), whereas damage reliability was lower (ICC 0.41, 95% CI 0.25-0.67). Agreement was moderate for activity-related domains including erythema (ICC 0.61), scaling (ICC 0.57), and erosions (ICC 0.57), while lower concordance was observed for chronic damage-related features such as poikiloderma (ICC 0.47, 95% CI 0.10-0.73). Hand assessments demonstrated the strongest performance, particularly for periungual changes (ICC 1.0, 95% CI 1.0-1.0) and global hand scores (ICC 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.97). The model also markedly reduced evaluation time compared with clinicians (42 s vs. 8.4 min per case), corresponding to an approximately 92% reduction in scoring time. Multimodal LLMs demonstrated promising agreement with expert raters for CDASI activity assessment and markedly improved efficiency, although lower reliability in damage domains reinforces the continued need for physician oversight.
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.