ArticleDermatology practical & conceptual2026
Dermoscopy-Based AI Risk Scoring Enhanced Experienced Dermatologists' Decision-Making: a Large Retrospective Reader Study.
Article in Dermatology practical & conceptual, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in dermoscopy is promising for diagnostic and management decisions.
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the impact of a deep learning-generated AI risk score, based on dermoscopic images and metadata, on dermatologists' diagnostic accuracy, confidence, and management strategy for lesions suspicious of skin cancer.
methodsA neural network was developed using a database of dermoscopic images of benign and malignant skin lesions, including both proprietary and public data. In a multicenter, cross-sectional study, 104 experienced dermatologists, with a median dermoscopic experience of 10 years, evaluated batches from a test set of 922 skin lesions, including 577 benign (63%) and 345 malignant (37%) cases, resulting in a dataset comprising 9,198 observations. Each case was assessed before and after the AI-generated risk score. Key outcomes included accurate diagnosis, correct decision on malignancy, and management strategy.
resultsOverall accuracy for correct diagnosis increased from 74.6% before AI to 81.6% after AI (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.8%-10.2%; P<0.001). Overall sensitivity for decision on malignancy increased from 91.7% before AI, to 97.6% after AI (95% CI: 2.9%-8.8%; P<0.001). The biggest increase in sensitivity was seen for melanoma and high-grade dysplastic naevi, from 79.0% before AI to 93.8% after AI (95% CI: 5.4%-24.4%; P=0.002). AI was significantly associated with choosing the correct management strategy (53.5% to 59.0%, 95% CI: 2.5%-8.5%; P<0.001).
conclusionsAI enhanced experienced dermatologists' decision-making, particularly for melanoma and high-grade dysplastic naevi. Future prospective studies should further explore AI's integration into routine clinical settings.
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.