| Literature DB >> 29785181 |
Juan Pablo Sáenz1, Mónica Paola Novoa2, Darío Correal3, Bell Raj Eapen4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of mobile applications in dermatology to support remote diagnosis is gaining acceptance, particularly in rural areas, where dermatology services are commonly managed by healthcare personnel with no specialty training. Moreover, ontologies-sets of concepts that represent knowledge in a given domain-are increasingly being used to support medical diagnosis. A specific case is ONTODerm: an ontology to aid dermatological diagnosis. However, there is little information on the combined use of mobile applications and ontologies as support solutions in dermatology.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29785181 PMCID: PMC5892263 DOI: 10.1155/2018/1496941
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Telemed Appl ISSN: 1687-6415
Figure 1Skinhealth overall perspective view.
Figure 2Screenshots of the mobile application.
The parameters that the application takes into account to describe dermatologic lesions.
| Parameter | Possible values |
|---|---|
| Birth date | — |
| Sex | Female, male |
| Phototype (Fitzpatrick scale) | Phototype I, phototype II, phototype III, phototype IV, phototype V, phototype VI |
| Lesion type | Atrophic, cyst, macule, nodule, patch, plaque, pustule, ulcer, vesicle |
| Shape | Annular, circinate, dome-shaped, ragged, oval, pedunculated, rounded, umbilicated |
| Lesion number | Disseminated, multiple, recurrent, solitary |
| Lesion distribution | Asymmetrical, confluent, scattered, symmetrical |
| Affected areas | Abdomen, genital, arm, dorsal, buttocks, chest, foot, hand, ears, face, finger, hand, nail, finger, head, leg, neck, palmar, hair, plantar, finger, foot, nail |
| Border | Poorly demarcated, well demarcated |
| Appearance date | — |
| Symptoms | Alopecia, blanching, desquamation, pain, edema, eruption, excoriation, exfoliation, hemorrhage, pigmentation, pruritus, fever, facial paralysis, weight loss, systemic symptoms |
| Past | Anemia, arthritis, malnutrition, diabetes, epileptic, hypertension, hypotension, myocarditis, neuropathy |
Demographic information.
| Sex |
|
|
| Male | 20 | 31 |
| Female | 44 | 69 |
| Total | 64 | 100 |
| Age | Average (years) | SD |
| Male | 38 | 16 |
| Female | 31 | 19 |
| Total | 33 | 17 |
| Age range | Minimum age | Maximum age |
| Male | 15 | 83 |
| Female | 2 | 74 |
| Total | 2 | 83 |
| Phototype (Fitzpatrick scale) |
|
|
| Phototype I | 0 | 0 |
| Phototype II | 16 | 25 |
| Phototype III | 24 | 37 |
| Phototype IV | 23 | 36 |
| Phototype V | 1 | 2 |
| Phototype VI | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 64 | 100 |
Percentage of accurate results.
| Total | Male | Female | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size ( | 64 | 20 | 44 |
| Point estimate | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| 95% CI | [0.644; 0.856] | [0.560; 0.940] | [0.622; 0.878] |
Figure 3Diagnoses of the consultations rated as accurate.
Figure 4Diagnoses of the consultations rated as not accurate.
Most frequent values for each parameter class.
|
| % | Accurate (%) | Not accurate (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lesion type | ||||
| Patch | 21 | 32.8 | 14 (66.6) | 7 (33.3) |
| Macule | 12 | 18.7 | 9 (75.0) | 3 (25.0) |
| Total | 33 | 51.5 | ||
| Number | ||||
| Solitary | 26 | 40.6 | 17 (65.4) | 9 (34.6) |
| Multiple | 23 | 25.9 | 19 (82.6) | 4 (17.4) |
| Total | 49 | 76.5 | ||
| Shape | ||||
| Annular | 18 | 28.2 | 10 (55.5) | 8 (44.5) |
| Ragged | 14 | 21.8 | 11 (78.6) | 3 (21.4) |
| Total | 32 | 50 | ||
| Distribution | ||||
| Asymmetrical | 23 | 35.9 | 12 (52.2) | 11 (47.8) |
| Confluent | 13 | 20.3 | 11 (84.6) | 2 (15.4) |
| Total | 36 | 56.2 | ||
| Border | ||||
| Poorly demarcated | 43 | 67.1 | 35 (81.4) | 8 (18.6) |
| Total | 43 | 67.1 | ||
| Affected areas | ||||
| Face | 25 | 39.0 | 24 (96.0) | 1 (4.0) |
| Hair | 13 | 20.3 | 7 (53.8) | 6 (46.2) |
| Total | 38 | 59.3 |
Results obtained when the Special Case (SC), the Strong Demarcation and Special Case (SD and SC), and the Asymmetrical Distribution (AD) were excluded.
| SC | SC and SD | AD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consultations ( | 53 | 32 | 41 |
| Certitude (%) | 81.0 | 94.0 | 88.0 |
| 95% CI | [0.706; 0.917] | [0.85; 1.0] | [0.788; 0.978] |
Figure 5Frequency of referral to previously stated reasons for declaring a query inaccurate.