Back

AI Decision Support for Challenging Teledermatology Cases: MedGemma Performance in the Dermatology ECHO Program

Appiagyei, J. B.; Otu, R. O.; Henry, M. K.; Casterline, B. W.; Becevic, M.

2026-05-26 health informatics
10.64898/2026.05.21.26353523 medRxiv
Show abstract

Teledermatology expands access to dermatologic expertise in rural settings, yet diagnostic uncertainty persists in low-resource primary care. This retrospective study evaluated MedGemma-4B-IT, a compact multimodal vision-language model, as adjunctive clinical decision support for challenging diagnostic cases. We analyzed 77 zero-concordance cases (360 clinical photographs) from a Dermatology Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) tele-mentoring program (2016-2021). Zero-concordance cases showed no overlap between primary clinician provisional diagnosis and dermatologist-confirmed diagnosis. The model was prompted using dermatologist-style format to generate ranked differential diagnoses. Performance was assessed using strict case-level top-k exact-match accuracy and relaxed matching criteria based on fuzzy string similarity. MedGemma achieved 0.0% strict top-1 accuracy, 1.3% top-3 accuracy, 3.9% top-5 accuracy, and 3.9% top-10 accuracy. Relaxed concept-level matching achieved 28.6% top-1, 63.6% top-5, and 67.5% top-10 accuracy. Image-level accuracy was 44.2% (159/360, 95% CI 39.0-49.5%). The model surfaced the correct diagnosis within differential lists in 45.5% of cases despite no exact top-1 matches, suggesting utility for differential expansion rather than definitive diagnosis. Performance varied across diagnostic categories, with highest accuracy in Other categories (54.5%) and lowest in neoplastic conditions (0.0%). Common errors included confusion between inflammatory and other diagnostic groupings. These findings characterize MedGemma performance on real-world teledermatology cases and inform safe, clinician-in-the-loop integration into teledermatology workflows where specialist oversight remains essential.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.