Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun 12;7:266. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2020.00266

Table 1.

Summary of literature on the use of machine learning in predicting dermatological outcomes.

Study Type of supervision End point Results Software(s) utilized Data used
Emam et al. (24) Supervised Risk of discontinuation of biologic AUC for predicted risk of discontinuation due to:
Any reason 0.95
Lack of efficacy 0.91
Adverse event 0.88
Other reasons 0.80
Generalized linear model, support vector machine, decision tree, random forest, gradient boosted trees, deep learning n = 681 psoriasis patients
13 clinically relevant features per patient
Wang et al. (25) Semi-supervised Risk of developing non-melanoma skin cancer AUC 0.89
Sensitivity 83.1%
Specificity 82.3%
Convolutional neural network (deep learning) n = 9,494, 1,829 non-melanoma skin cancer patients, 7,665 random non-cancer controls
20 clinically relevant features per patient
Roffman et al. (26) Supervised Risk of developing non-melanoma skin cancer AUC 0.81
Sensitivity 86.2%
Specificity 62.7%
Artificial neural network (deep learning) n = 462,630, 2,056 non-melanoma skin cancer patients, 460,574 non-cancer patients
13 clinically relevant features per patient
Khozeimeh et al. (27) Supervised Response to wart treatment method Cryotherapy:
AUC 0.902, accuracy 80%
Immunotherapy:
AUC 0.813, accuracy 98%
Fuzzy logic and adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) n = 180, 90 patients in cryotherapy group, 90 patients in immunotherapy group
7 clinically relevant features per patient in the cryotherapy group, 8 in the immunotherapy group
Tan et al. (28) Supervised Complexity of reconstructive surgery after periocular basal cell carcinoma excision Naïve Bayesian Classifier:
AUC 0.854
PPV 38.1%
NPV 94.1%
ADTree:
AUC 0.835
PPV 31%
NPV 97%
Decision table, Bayesian, tree-based methods, multivariate logistic regression, nearest neighbor classifier, support vector machine n = 156 periocular BCC patients
7 clinically relevant features per patient
de Franciscis et al. (29) Supervised Risk of developing chronic venous ulcers in patients with chronic venous disease CVU group level of risk 32.38 ± 7.19%
Non-CVU group level of risk 8.34 ± 3.38%
Fuzzy logic to stratify CVD patients into CVU and non-CVU groups n = 77, 40 patients with CVU, 37 patients without CVU
27 clinically relevant features