When AI and Experts Agree on Error: Intrinsic Ambiguity in Dermatoscopic Images

Artificial intelligence (AI) has advanced at a rapid pace in recent years. Initially, breakthroughs in large language models caught widespread attention. However, recent generations of frontier AI models have adopted multimodal capabilities as a first class citizen, with vision capabilities being central to that. In this paper, we evaluate three recently released models on the task of diagnosing dermatological conditions from patient-submitted images. The models chosen are at the low to mid tier in terms of pricing and thus represent a floor on current AI capabilities, not a ceiling. We evaluate AI performance relative to a panel of three certified dermatologists, who grade each image, and we present four interesting findings. Firstly, depending on the metric, the tested AI models are either on par or slightly trail humans in terms of inter-clinician agreement. Secondly, we find that asking AI models for a confidence rating produces poorly calibrated answers, meaning use of confidence thresholds should not be relied upon in a clinical setting. Thirdly, the effect of providing additional patient metadata is strongly model-specific, with one of the three models degrading on every metric considered. Finally, model cost is not predictive of performance. The best-performing model we tested costs on average $0.0045 per case.

Human-in-the-loop validation is essential in safety-critical clinical AI, yet the transition between initial model inference and expert correction is rarely analyzed as a structured signal. We introduce a diagnostic alignment framework in which the AI-generated image based report is preserved as an immutable inference state and systematically compared with the physician-validated outcome. The inference pipeline integrates a vision-enabled large language model, BERT- based medical entity extraction, and a Sequential Language Model Inference (SLMI) step to enforce domain-consistent refinement prior to expert review. Evaluation on 21 dermatological cases (21 complete AI physician pairs) em- ployed a four-level concordance framework comprising exact primary match rate (PMR), semantic similarity-adjusted rate (AMR), cross-category alignment, and Comprehensive Concordance Rate (CCR). Exact agreement reached 71.4% and remained unchanged under semantic similarity (t = 0.60), while structured cross-category and differential overlap analysis yielded 100% comprehensive concordance (95% CI: [83.9%, 100%]). No cases demonstrated complete diagnostic divergence. These findings show that binary lexical evaluation substantially un- derestimates clinically meaningful alignment. Modeling expert validation as a structured transformation enables signal-aware quantification of correction dynamics and supports traceable, human aligned evaluation of image based clinical decision support systems.

The application of machine learning to dermatology has grown substantially in recent years, moving beyond proof-of-concept studies toward potential applications. However, clinical dermatology remains a challenging and still open problem. Diagnostic assessment is often ambiguous, and skin lesions exhibit high variability, compounded by differences in acquisition modality, device quality, and patient demographics. These factors hinder the development of robust models suitable for safe and equitable clinical use. To support translation into practice, it is essential to systematically evaluate how contemporary models generalize across heterogeneous data sources. In this work, we benchmark a diverse set of architectures on recent dermatology datasets, spanning dermoscopic images and smartphone-based clinical photographs. We assess the robustness of recent general-purpose and medical vision-language models, as well as foundation models, and compare them against task-specific dermatology classifiers, including embedding-based approaches and convolutional neural networks. Our study provides an evaluation of model performance under distribution shifts, modality changes, and demographic variability. By quantifying the gap between current state-of-the-art models and the requirements of clinical deployment, we aim to contribute to the development of reliable, accessible, and clinically applicable AI systems for dermatology.