Junyan Wu

Zhichao He, Mouxiao Bian, Jianhong Zhu et al.

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement is the global benchmark for transparent and high-quality reporting of randomized controlled trials. Manual verification of CONSORT adherence is a laborious, time-intensive process that constitutes a significant bottleneck in peer review and evidence synthesis. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the accuracy and reliability of contemporary LLMs in identifying the adherence of published RCTs to the CONSORT 2010 statement under a zero-shot setting. We constructed a golden standard dataset of 150 published RCTs spanning diverse medical specialties. The primary outcome was the macro-averaged F1-score for the three-class classification task, supplemented by item-wise performance metrics and qualitative error analysis. Overall model performance was modest. The top-performing models, Gemini-2.5-Flash and DeepSeek-R1, achieved nearly identical macro F1 scores of 0.634 and Cohen's Kappa coefficients of 0.280 and 0.282, respectively, indicating only fair agreement with expert consensus. A striking performance disparity was observed across classes: while most models could identify compliant items with high accuracy (F1 score > 0.850), they struggled profoundly with identifying non-compliant and not applicable items, where F1 scores rarely exceeded 0.400. Notably, some high-profile models like GPT-4o underperformed, achieving a macro F1-score of only 0.521. LLMs show potential as preliminary screening assistants for CONSORT checks, capably identifying well-reported items. However, their current inability to reliably detect reporting omissions or methodological flaws makes them unsuitable for replacing human expertise in the critical appraisal of trial quality.

Junyan Wu, Hao Jiang, Xiaowei Ding et al.

Skin conditions are reported the 4th leading cause of nonfatal disease burden worldwide. However, given the colossal spectrum of skin disorders defined clinically and shortage in dermatology expertise, diagnosing skin conditions in a timely and accurate manner remains a challenging task. Using computer vision technologies, a deep learning system has proven effective assisting clinicians in image diagnostics of radiology, ophthalmology and more. In this paper, we propose a deep learning system (DLS) that may predict differential diagnosis of skin conditions using clinical images. Our DLS formulates the differential diagnostics as a multi-label classification task over 80 conditions when only incomplete image labels are available. We tackle the label incompleteness problem by combining a classification network with a Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) that characterizes label co-occurrence and effectively regularizes it towards a sparse representation. Our approach is demonstrated on 136,462 clinical images and concludes that the classification accuracy greatly benefit from the Co-occurrence supervision. Our DLS achieves 93.6% top-5 accuracy on 12,378 test images and consistently outperform the baseline classification network.

Xiaoxiao Li, Junyan Wu, Eric Z. Chen et al.

Melanoma is a type of skin cancer with the most rapidly increasing incidence. Early detection of melanoma using dermoscopy images significantly increases patients' survival rate. However, accurately classifying skin lesions by eye, especially in the early stage of melanoma, is extremely challenging for the dermatologists. Hence, the discovery of reliable biomarkers will be meaningful for melanoma diagnosis. Recent years, the value of deep learning empowered computer-assisted diagnose has been shown in biomedical imaging based decision making. However, much research focuses on improving disease detection accuracy but not exploring the evidence of pathology. In this paper, we propose a method to interpret the deep learning classification findings. Firstly, we propose an accurate neural network architecture to classify skin lesions. Secondly, we utilize a prediction difference analysis method that examines each patch on the image through patch-wised corrupting to detect the biomarkers. Lastly, we validate that our biomarker findings are corresponding to the patterns in the literature. The findings can be significant and useful to guide clinical diagnosis.