ArticlePloS one2026
AI-driven diagnosis of mpox using deep learning models.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mpox lesions can resemble other dermatological conditions, motivating image-based screening, yet published studies remain difficult to compare owing to differences in dataset construction, augmentation policy, and evaluation design. This study provides a leakage-aware benchmark for binary mpox classification using a unified dataset assembled from MSLD v1.0 and v2.0. Seven pretrained backbones and a weighted ensemble were compared under group-stratified five-fold cross-validation with original-only test evaluation, validation-based threshold selection, and temperature scaling. The weighted ensemble achieved mean accuracy 0.8729, F1-score 0.8334, and AUC 0.9388; ConvNeXt-Tiny was the strongest single model (F1 0.8159, AUC 0.9284). These grouped original-only results are intentionally conservative relative to augmentation-heavy or single-split designs and should be interpreted as deflated but more trustworthy reference values. Post hoc calibration analysis, content-level near-duplicate auditing, and a test-time augmentation ablation are provided to substantiate the methodological claims. The contribution is methodological: a transparent benchmark emphasizing reproducible dataset curation, grouped evaluation, and calibrated comparison, while highlighting the limitations of current public skin-image data. Accordingly, these results should be interpreted as a reproducible reference benchmark rather than a clinically validated diagnostic tool, and external clinical validation remains necessary before deployment.
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.