Physician Level Assessment of Hirsute Women and of Their Eligibility for Laser Treatment With Deep Learning.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 DERMATOLOGY Lasers in Surgery and Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-22 DOI:10.1002/lsm.23843
Kenneth Thomsen, Raluca Jalaboi, Ole Winther, Hans Bredsted Lomholt, Henrik F Lorentzen, Trine Høgsberg, Henrik Egekvist, Lene Hedelund, Sofie Jørgensen, Sanne Frost, Trine Bertelsen, Lars Iversen
{"title":"Physician Level Assessment of Hirsute Women and of Their Eligibility for Laser Treatment With Deep Learning.","authors":"Kenneth Thomsen, Raluca Jalaboi, Ole Winther, Hans Bredsted Lomholt, Henrik F Lorentzen, Trine Høgsberg, Henrik Egekvist, Lene Hedelund, Sofie Jørgensen, Sanne Frost, Trine Bertelsen, Lars Iversen","doi":"10.1002/lsm.23843","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Hirsutism is a widespread condition affecting 5%-15% of females. Laser treatment of hirsutism has the best long-term effect. Patients with nonpigmented or nonterminal hairs are not eligible for laser treatment, and the current patient journey needed to establish eligibility for laser hair removal is problematic in many health-care systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this study, we compared the ability to assess eligibility for laser hair removal of health-care professionals and convolutional neural network (CNN)-based models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CNN ensemble model, synthesized from the outputs of five individual CNN models, reached an eligibility assessment accuracy of 0.52 (95% CI: 0.42-0.60) and a κ of 0.20 (95% CI: 0.13-0.27), taking a consensus expert label as reference. For comparison, board-certified dermatologists achieved a mean accuracy of 0.48 (95% CI: 0.44-0.52) and a mean κ of 0.26 (95% CI: 0.22-0.31). Intra-rater analysis of board-certified dermatologists yielded κ in the 0.32 (95% CI: 0.24-0.40) and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.56-0.74) range.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Current assessment of eligibility for laser hair removal is challenging. Developing a laser hair removal eligibility assessment tool based on deep learning that performs on a par with trained dermatologists is feasible. Such a model may potentially reduce workload, increase quality and effectiveness, and facilitate equal health-care access. However, to achieve true clinical generalizability, prospective randomized clinical intervention studies are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":17961,"journal":{"name":"Lasers in Surgery and Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lasers in Surgery and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.23843","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Hirsutism is a widespread condition affecting 5%-15% of females. Laser treatment of hirsutism has the best long-term effect. Patients with nonpigmented or nonterminal hairs are not eligible for laser treatment, and the current patient journey needed to establish eligibility for laser hair removal is problematic in many health-care systems.

Methods: In this study, we compared the ability to assess eligibility for laser hair removal of health-care professionals and convolutional neural network (CNN)-based models.

Results: The CNN ensemble model, synthesized from the outputs of five individual CNN models, reached an eligibility assessment accuracy of 0.52 (95% CI: 0.42-0.60) and a κ of 0.20 (95% CI: 0.13-0.27), taking a consensus expert label as reference. For comparison, board-certified dermatologists achieved a mean accuracy of 0.48 (95% CI: 0.44-0.52) and a mean κ of 0.26 (95% CI: 0.22-0.31). Intra-rater analysis of board-certified dermatologists yielded κ in the 0.32 (95% CI: 0.24-0.40) and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.56-0.74) range.

Conclusion: Current assessment of eligibility for laser hair removal is challenging. Developing a laser hair removal eligibility assessment tool based on deep learning that performs on a par with trained dermatologists is feasible. Such a model may potentially reduce workload, increase quality and effectiveness, and facilitate equal health-care access. However, to achieve true clinical generalizability, prospective randomized clinical intervention studies are needed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
119
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Lasers in Surgery and Medicine publishes the highest quality research and clinical manuscripts in areas relating to the use of lasers in medicine and biology. The journal publishes basic and clinical studies on the therapeutic and diagnostic use of lasers in all the surgical and medical specialties. Contributions regarding clinical trials, new therapeutic techniques or instrumentation, laser biophysics and bioengineering, photobiology and photochemistry, outcomes research, cost-effectiveness, and other aspects of biomedicine are welcome. Using a process of rigorous yet rapid review of submitted manuscripts, findings of high scientific and medical interest are published with a minimum delay.
期刊最新文献
Defining the Treatment Window: Early Versus Late Pulsed Dye Laser Therapy for Posttraumatic and Surgical Scars in Asian Patients. Physician Level Assessment of Hirsute Women and of Their Eligibility for Laser Treatment With Deep Learning. The 2910-nm Fiber Laser Is Safe and Effective for Improving Acne Scarring. Timing of Laser Intervention on Facial Scars: A 3D Imaging and Scar Scale Analysis in a Retrospective Study. Use of Optical Coherence Tomography to Assess Properties of Cutaneous Defects Following Radiofrequency Microneedling and Laser Treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1