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.

1
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
22.0%
2
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.1%
3
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.9%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 20%
6.2%
5
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.9%
7
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 48%
2.0%
9
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.8%
10
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.8%
11
British Journal of Ophthalmology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
12
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
13
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
14
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.5%
15
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.3%
16
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
17
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
18
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.2%
19
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
20
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.9%
21
Ophthalmology Science
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
22
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
Journal of Pathology Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
24
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
25
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
26
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
27
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
28
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
29
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
30
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%