CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT07428954LegitHealthSANUpdated Feb 24, 2026

Using Artificial Intelligence to Help Doctors Identify Different Skin Conditions and Improve Patient Care

An observational study in Dermatitis, Melanoma (Skin Cancer) and Alopecia, sponsored by AI Labs Group S.L. Completed at 1 site in Spain. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-02-24.

Sponsored by AI Labs Group S.L · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Other
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
16
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This study aims to determine if an artificial intelligence (AI) medical device can help doctors more accurately identify a wide variety of skin conditions and improve the efficiency of patient consultations. While many patients visit primary care for skin issues, general doctors may sometimes have different opinions from specialists, which can lead to delays in getting the right treatment.

The researchers hypothesized that using the AI tool would increase the true diagnostic accuracy of healthcare professionals for multiple skin conditions. To test this, 16 doctors (including 10 general practitioners and 6 dermatologists) evaluated 29 different medical images.

For each case, the doctors followed a structured process:

  • Initial Assessment: Doctors first gave a diagnosis based only on the patient's image and medical history.
  • AI Support: Doctors were then shown the AI's top five suggested diagnoses and confidence levels to see if they wished to adjust their final decision.
  • Clinical Utility: Doctors also indicated if the patient required a specialist referral and if the case could be handled through a remote (online) consultation.

The primary question the study tried to answer was whether AI support could significantly improve correct diagnoses across 13 different types of skin pathologies-ranging from common rashes to skin cancer-while also making the consultation process faster and more effective for both doctors and patients.

Read the detailed description

This detailed description outlines the clinical methodology, technical framework, and data integrity protocols utilized in the investigation of the Legit Health Plus medical device for skin pathologies in primary care and dermatology.

Study Design and Technical Methodology The research was conducted as a prospective observational and cross-sectional self-controlled study. It utilized a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) framework to evaluate the impact of Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) on clinician performance.

  • Self-Controlled Framework: Each healthcare professional (HCP) served as their own comparator, providing diagnoses first without the use of the device and subsequently with the support of the device on the same set of images.
  • Evaluation Workflow: Participants accessed a secure web-based platform to review 29 clinical cases. For each case, doctors provided an initial diagnosis based on an image and medical history, followed by a final diagnosis after reviewing the AI's top 5 suggested International Classification of Diseases (ICD) categories and confidence levels.
  • Clinical Utility Assessment: The study included a specific questionnaire to evaluate the utility of the data, consultation time reductions, and confidence in making remote clinical decisions.
  • Pathology Diversity: The dataset included 13 distinct skin conditions, ranging from common ailments like Acne and Dermatitis to malignant conditions such as Melanoma and Basal Cell Carcinoma.

Quality Assurance and Data Management

To ensure the scientific integrity of the investigation, the following quality and monitoring protocols were implemented:

  • Data Validation and Checks: A validation process was carried out by running computer filters based on validation rules to automatically identify missing values or inconsistencies. Manual editing and exploratory statistical techniques were also used to complement error detection.
  • Monitoring Plan: The investigation was monitored by a designated clinical monitor, independent of the investigational site, to ensure the protection of subject rights and data accuracy. Monitoring included remote video or telephone meetings every 3 months.
  • Bias Minimization: HCPs were randomly selected to ensure that outcomes were not influenced by pre-existing participant characteristics. Standardized procedures for conducting the study and measuring outcomes were strictly followed to reduce variability.

Ethical and Confidentiality Framework The study adhered to ISO 14155:2021, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

  • Anonymization: All clinical images were completely anonymized and sourced from public dermatological atlases, containing no information that would allow the identification of patients.
  • Data Security: All data entries were timestamped, encrypted using industry-standard security protocols, and stored in a secure central database.
  • Data Retention: Upon completion of the study and drafting of the final report, all information stored in the device platform is scheduled to be permanently deleted.
02

Conditions studied

  • Dermatitis
  • Melanoma (Skin Cancer)
  • Alopecia
  • Urticaria
  • Granuloma Annulare
  • Seborrheic Keratoses
  • Herpes
  • Tinea
  • Psoriasis
  • Onychomychosis
  • Acne
  • Pressure Ulcer (PU)
  • Nevus

Keywords

  • Skin conditions
  • Dermatologists
  • Primary Care Physicians
  • Diagnostic accuracy
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

The study population consists of board-certified healthcare professionals recruited from the clinical fields of general medicine and dermatology. The participant group includes:

  • Primary Care Practitioners: General practitioners who often serve as the first point of contact for patients with dermatological symptoms.
  • Specialist Dermatologists: Physicians with advanced expertise in skin pathologies and rare conditions.
  • Experience Level: The cohort includes practitioners with at least 5 years of clinical experience in their respective specialities.

Participants were recruited to engage in a remote, web-based evaluation environment rather than being selected from a single physical hospital or town. The clinical images evaluated as part of the study "cases" were sourced from international public dermatology atlases and existing research databases from the sponsor, representing a diverse global patient population.

Inclusion criteria

  • Board-certified primary care practitioners and dermatologists, regardless of their professional experience.
  • High-quality images of patients with different skin conditions.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Low-quality images of patients which can not be properly analyzed.
04

Study design

Observational model
Other
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
16 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • Healthcare Professionals (Primary Care Physicians and Dermatologists)

    This group is composed of board-certified healthcare professionals (HCPs) who serve as the "readers" in this multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) study. The cohort is uniquely characterized by its internal comparison: each participant acts as their own control. - Dual Professional Roles: The group includes 10 primary care physicians (PCPs) and 6 dermatologists, allowing for a comparison between generalist and specialist diagnostic baseline performance. - Interventional Exposure: All participants are evaluated under two distinct conditions: first, providing a diagnosis based solely on clinical images and patient history; second, providing a diagnosis assisted by the AI-based medical device's top 5 suggestions and confidence levels. - Clinical Expertise: Every member of the cohort has a minimum of 5 years of clinical experience in their respective field.

    Device: AI-based medical device for aided diagnosis in Dermatology

Interventions

  • DeviceAI-based medical device for aided diagnosis in Dermatology

    The intervention consists of a Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) software-only medical device that utilizes computer vision algorithms to analyze digital images of skin structures. During the study, healthcare professionals use the tool as a diagnostic support system to assist in the evaluation of complex dermatological conditions.

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Diagnostic Accuracy for Multiple Dermatological Conditions with and without Artificial Intelligence Support

    This measure evaluates the "Top-1" diagnostic accuracy of healthcare professionals (HCPs). Accuracy is determined by comparing the clinician's identified diagnosis-both before and after receiving the AI device's top 5 suggestions and confidence levels-against a confirmed reference standard (confirmed by dermatologists or anatomical pathology)

    Time frame: Day 1

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change in Dermatology Referral Rate Assisted by Artificial Intelligence.

    This outcome validates the percentage of cases that practitioners determine should be referred to a dermatology specialist after reviewing the AI-provided information, which includes malignancy indices and referral recommendations.

    Time frame: Day 1

  2. Percentage of Cases Deemed Manageable via Remote Consultation.

    This measure assesses the practitioners' evaluation of whether a case can be confirmed and treated remotely through teledermatology based on the AI analysis.

    Time frame: Day 1

  3. Clinical Utility and Usability Scores for Diagnostic Support.

    This outcome assesses the perceived value of the device using a Clinical Utility Questionnaire. It measures average utility of data (on a scale of 0-10, where 10 is most useful), system usability scores, and the impact on consultation time reduction.

    Time frame: Day 1

06

Study locations

1 site
  • AI Labs Group S.L.
    Bilbao, Basque Country, Spain
07

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07428954
Lead sponsor
AI Labs Group S.L
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Feb 24, 2026
Start date
Jun 1, 2024
Primary completion
Oct 10, 2024
Completion
Oct 10, 2024
Last update
Feb 24, 2026

Study contacts

Antonio Martorell, PhD
principal investigator · Hospital Universitari de Manises

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion