ArticleVeterinary dermatology2026
External Validation of a Custom-Trained Artificial Intelligence Model for Canine Ear Canal Disease and Comparison With Veterinary Professionals.
Article in Veterinary dermatology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOtitis externa (OE) is common in dogs, yet accurate otoscopic diagnosis remains challenging. Artificial intelligence (AI) may augment clinical decision-making in otoscopy. Previous work suggested that dataset size and duplicate images affect model performance. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesExternal validation of four YOLOv8n models using new images and comparison with six veterinary professionals of varying experience. We expected that models trained on larger, deduplicated datasets would demonstrate superior performance, and that the best-performing model would outperform non-specialist veterinary professionals while remaining comparable to board-certified referral clinicians. MATERIALS AND
methodsFour YOLOv8n models (A-D) were trained using different dataset compositions and externally validated on 300 previously unseen otoscopic images (100 healthy, 100 OE, 100 ear canal masses). Predictions were compared with reference labels assigned by a board-certified referral clinician. Six veterinary professionals independently classified the same images, blinded to ground truth and AI outputs. Performance was assessed across multiple confidence thresholds (0.25-0.75) using overall agreement, Cohen's κ, sensitivity and specificity.
resultsModel D (largest deduplicated dataset) demonstrated the highest external performance, achieving 66.3% agreement and κ = 0.508 at a 0.25 confidence threshold. Classwise sensitivity/specificity for Model D (0.25) were: healthy (90.0%/69.0%), OE (59.0%/75.5%) and mass (50.0%/93.5%). Veterinary professionals outperformed all AI models (median agreement 77.2%, κ = 0.658), with the referral clinician achieving the highest concordance. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Model D generalised best during external validation yet remained inferior to veterinary professionals. These results support the model's role as a decision-support tool rather than a replacement for clinical expertise.
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.