Search

Skin conditions affect an estimated 1.9 billion people worldwide. A shortage of dermatologists causes long wait times and leads patients to seek dermatologic care from general practitioners. However, the diagnostic accuracy of general practitioners has been reported to be only 0.24-0.70 (compared to 0.77-0.96 for dermatologists), resulting in referral errors, delays in care, and errors in diagnosis and treatment. In this paper, we developed a deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions for clinical cases (skin photographs and associated medical histories). The DLS distinguishes between 26 skin conditions that represent roughly 80% of the volume of skin conditions seen in primary care. The DLS was developed and validated using de-identified cases from a teledermatology practice serving 17 clinical sites via a temporal split: the first 14,021 cases for development and the last 3,756 cases for validation. On the validation set, where a panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard for every case, the DLS achieved 0.71 and 0.93 top-1 and top-3 accuracies respectively. For a random subset of the validation set (n=963 cases), 18 clinicians reviewed the cases for comparison. On this subset, the DLS achieved a 0.67 top-1 accuracy, non-inferior to board-certified dermatologists (0.63, p

IMPORTANCE: Most dermatologic cases are initially evaluated by nondermatologists such as primary care physicians (PCPs) or nurse practitioners (NPs). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an artificial intelligence (AI)–based tool that assists with diagnoses of dermatologic conditions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multiple-reader, multiple-case diagnostic study developed an AI-based tool and evaluated its utility. Primary care physicians and NPs retrospectively reviewed an enriched set of cases representing 120 different skin conditions. Randomization was used to ensure each clinician reviewed each case either with or without AI assistance; each clinician alternated between batches of 50 cases in each modality. The reviews occurred from February 21 to April 28, 2020. Data were analyzed from May 26, 2020, to January 27, 2021. EXPOSURES: An AI-based assistive tool for interpreting clinical images and associated medical history. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary analysis evaluated agreement with reference diagnoses provided by a panel of 3 dermatologists for PCPs and NPs. Secondary analyses included diagnostic accuracy for biopsy-confirmed cases, biopsy and referral rates, review time, and diagnostic confidence. RESULTS: Forty board-certified clinicians, including 20 PCPs (14 women [70.0%]; mean experience, 11.3 [range, 2-32] years) and 20 NPs (18 women [90.0%]; mean experience, 13.1 [range, 2-34] years) reviewed 1048 retrospective cases (672 female [64.2%]; median age, 43 [interquartile range, 30-56] years; 41 920 total reviews) from a teledermatology practice serving 11 sites and provided 0 to 5 differential diagnoses per case (mean [SD], 1.6 [0.7]). The PCPs were located across 12 states, and the NPs practiced in primary care without physician supervision across 9 states. The NPs had a mean of 13.1 (range, 2-34) years of experience and practiced in primary care without physician supervision across 9 states. Artificial intelligence assistance was significantly associated with higher agreement with reference diagnoses. For PCPs, the increase in diagnostic agreement was 10% (95% CI, 8%-11%; P

To understand the impact of deep learning diabetic retinopathy (DR) algorithms on physician readers in computer-assisted settings.Evaluation of diagnostic technology.One thousand seven hundred ninety-six retinal fundus images from 1612 diabetic patients.Ten ophthalmologists (5 general ophthalmologists, 4 retina specialists, 1 retina fellow) read images for DR severity based on the International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy disease severity scale in each of 3 conditions: unassisted, grades only, or grades plus heatmap. Grades-only assistance comprised a histogram of DR predictions (grades) from a trained deep-learning model. For grades plus heatmap, we additionally showed explanatory heatmaps.For each experiment arm, we computed sensitivity and specificity of each reader and the algorithm for different levels of DR severity against an adjudicated reference standard. We also measured accuracy (exact 5-class level agreement and Cohen's quadratically weighted κ), reader-reported confidence (5-point Likert scale), and grading time.Readers graded more accurately with model assistance than without for the grades-only condition (P0.001). Grades plus heatmaps improved accuracy for patients with DR (P0.001), but reduced accuracy for patients without DR (P = 0.006). Both forms of assistance increased readers' sensitivity moderate-or-worse DR: unassisted: mean, 79.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 72.3%-86.5%]; grades only: mean, 87.5% [95% CI, 85.1%-89.9%]; grades plus heatmap: mean, 88.7% [95% CI, 84.9%-92.5%] without a corresponding drop in specificity (unassisted: mean, 96.6% [95% CI, 95.9%-97.4%]; grades only: mean, 96.1% [95% CI, 95.5%-96.7%]; grades plus heatmap: mean, 95.5% [95% CI, 94.8%-96.1%]). Algorithmic assistance increased the accuracy of retina specialists above that of the unassisted reader or model alone; and increased grading confidence and grading time across all readers. For most cases, grades plus heatmap was only as effective as grades only. Over the course of the experiment, grading time decreased across all conditions, although most sharply for grades plus heatmap.Deep learning algorithms can improve the accuracy of, and confidence in, DR diagnosis in an assisted read setting. They also may increase grading time, although these effects may be ameliorated with experience.