Generalizability and usefulness of artificial intelligence for skin cancer diagnostics: An algorithm validation study
Abstract Background Artificial intelligence can be trained to outperform dermatologists in image‐based skin cancer diagnostics. However, the networks' sensitivity to biases and overfitting may hamper their clinical applicability. Objectives The aim of this study was to explain the potential con...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Wiley
2022-12-01
|
Series: | JEADV Clinical Practice |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/jvc2.59 |
_version_ | 1811213517302267904 |
---|---|
author | Niels K. Ternov Anders N. Christensen Peter J. T. Kampen Gustav Als Tine Vestergaard Lars Konge Martin Tolsgaard Lisbet R. Hölmich Pascale Guitera Annette H. Chakera Morten R. Hannemose |
author_facet | Niels K. Ternov Anders N. Christensen Peter J. T. Kampen Gustav Als Tine Vestergaard Lars Konge Martin Tolsgaard Lisbet R. Hölmich Pascale Guitera Annette H. Chakera Morten R. Hannemose |
author_sort | Niels K. Ternov |
collection | DOAJ |
description | Abstract Background Artificial intelligence can be trained to outperform dermatologists in image‐based skin cancer diagnostics. However, the networks' sensitivity to biases and overfitting may hamper their clinical applicability. Objectives The aim of this study was to explain the potential consequences of implementing convolutional neural networks for stand‐alone melanoma diagnostics and skin lesion triage. Methods In this algorithm validation study on retrospective data, we reproduced and evaluated the performance of state‐of‐the‐art artificial intelligence (convolutional neural networks) for skin cancer diagnostics. The networks were trained on 25,331 annotated dermoscopic skin lesion images from an open‐source data set (ISIC‐2019) and tested using a novel data set (AISC‐2021) consisting of 26,591 annotated dermoscopic skin lesion images. We tested the trained algorithms' ability to generalize to new data and their diagnostic performance in two simulations (melanoma diagnostics and skin lesion triage). Results The trained algorithms performed significantly less accurate diagnostics on images of nevi, melanomas and actinic keratoses from the AISC‐2021 data set than the ISIC‐2019 data set (p < 0.003). Almost one‐third (31.1%) of the melanomas were misclassified during the melanoma diagnostics simulation, irrespective of their Breslow thickness. Furthermore, the algorithms marked 92.7% of the lesions ‘suspicious’ during the triage simulation, which yielded a triage sensitivity and specificity of 99.7% and 8.2%, respectively. Conclusions Although state‐of‐the‐art artificial intelligence outperforms dermatologists on image‐based skin lesion classification within an artificial setting, additional data and technological advances are needed before clinical implementation. |
first_indexed | 2024-04-12T05:47:54Z |
format | Article |
id | doaj.art-ba5155ff6442483daa8fc4d02b0d98b6 |
institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
issn | 2768-6566 |
language | English |
last_indexed | 2024-04-12T05:47:54Z |
publishDate | 2022-12-01 |
publisher | Wiley |
record_format | Article |
series | JEADV Clinical Practice |
spelling | doaj.art-ba5155ff6442483daa8fc4d02b0d98b62022-12-22T03:45:24ZengWileyJEADV Clinical Practice2768-65662022-12-011434435410.1002/jvc2.59Generalizability and usefulness of artificial intelligence for skin cancer diagnostics: An algorithm validation studyNiels K. Ternov0Anders N. Christensen1Peter J. T. Kampen2Gustav Als3Tine Vestergaard4Lars Konge5Martin Tolsgaard6Lisbet R. Hölmich7Pascale Guitera8Annette H. Chakera9Morten R. Hannemose10Department of Plastic Surgery Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital Copenhagen DenmarkDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science Technical University of Denmark Lyngby DenmarkDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science Technical University of Denmark Lyngby DenmarkDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science Technical University of Denmark Lyngby DenmarkDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy Center Odense University Hospital Odense DenmarkCopenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation Copenhagen University Hospital ‐ Rigshospitalet Copenhagen DenmarkCopenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation Copenhagen University Hospital ‐ Rigshospitalet Copenhagen DenmarkDepartment of Plastic Surgery Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital Copenhagen DenmarkMelanoma Institute Australia Sydney The University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales AustraliaDepartment of Plastic Surgery Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital Copenhagen DenmarkDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science Technical University of Denmark Lyngby DenmarkAbstract Background Artificial intelligence can be trained to outperform dermatologists in image‐based skin cancer diagnostics. However, the networks' sensitivity to biases and overfitting may hamper their clinical applicability. Objectives The aim of this study was to explain the potential consequences of implementing convolutional neural networks for stand‐alone melanoma diagnostics and skin lesion triage. Methods In this algorithm validation study on retrospective data, we reproduced and evaluated the performance of state‐of‐the‐art artificial intelligence (convolutional neural networks) for skin cancer diagnostics. The networks were trained on 25,331 annotated dermoscopic skin lesion images from an open‐source data set (ISIC‐2019) and tested using a novel data set (AISC‐2021) consisting of 26,591 annotated dermoscopic skin lesion images. We tested the trained algorithms' ability to generalize to new data and their diagnostic performance in two simulations (melanoma diagnostics and skin lesion triage). Results The trained algorithms performed significantly less accurate diagnostics on images of nevi, melanomas and actinic keratoses from the AISC‐2021 data set than the ISIC‐2019 data set (p < 0.003). Almost one‐third (31.1%) of the melanomas were misclassified during the melanoma diagnostics simulation, irrespective of their Breslow thickness. Furthermore, the algorithms marked 92.7% of the lesions ‘suspicious’ during the triage simulation, which yielded a triage sensitivity and specificity of 99.7% and 8.2%, respectively. Conclusions Although state‐of‐the‐art artificial intelligence outperforms dermatologists on image‐based skin lesion classification within an artificial setting, additional data and technological advances are needed before clinical implementation.https://doi.org/10.1002/jvc2.59artificial intelligencemelanomaskin cancerskin cancer prevention and early detection |
spellingShingle | Niels K. Ternov Anders N. Christensen Peter J. T. Kampen Gustav Als Tine Vestergaard Lars Konge Martin Tolsgaard Lisbet R. Hölmich Pascale Guitera Annette H. Chakera Morten R. Hannemose Generalizability and usefulness of artificial intelligence for skin cancer diagnostics: An algorithm validation study JEADV Clinical Practice artificial intelligence melanoma skin cancer skin cancer prevention and early detection |
title | Generalizability and usefulness of artificial intelligence for skin cancer diagnostics: An algorithm validation study |
title_full | Generalizability and usefulness of artificial intelligence for skin cancer diagnostics: An algorithm validation study |
title_fullStr | Generalizability and usefulness of artificial intelligence for skin cancer diagnostics: An algorithm validation study |
title_full_unstemmed | Generalizability and usefulness of artificial intelligence for skin cancer diagnostics: An algorithm validation study |
title_short | Generalizability and usefulness of artificial intelligence for skin cancer diagnostics: An algorithm validation study |
title_sort | generalizability and usefulness of artificial intelligence for skin cancer diagnostics an algorithm validation study |
topic | artificial intelligence melanoma skin cancer skin cancer prevention and early detection |
url | https://doi.org/10.1002/jvc2.59 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nielskternov generalizabilityandusefulnessofartificialintelligenceforskincancerdiagnosticsanalgorithmvalidationstudy AT andersnchristensen generalizabilityandusefulnessofartificialintelligenceforskincancerdiagnosticsanalgorithmvalidationstudy AT peterjtkampen generalizabilityandusefulnessofartificialintelligenceforskincancerdiagnosticsanalgorithmvalidationstudy AT gustavals generalizabilityandusefulnessofartificialintelligenceforskincancerdiagnosticsanalgorithmvalidationstudy AT tinevestergaard generalizabilityandusefulnessofartificialintelligenceforskincancerdiagnosticsanalgorithmvalidationstudy AT larskonge generalizabilityandusefulnessofartificialintelligenceforskincancerdiagnosticsanalgorithmvalidationstudy AT martintolsgaard generalizabilityandusefulnessofartificialintelligenceforskincancerdiagnosticsanalgorithmvalidationstudy AT lisbetrholmich generalizabilityandusefulnessofartificialintelligenceforskincancerdiagnosticsanalgorithmvalidationstudy AT pascaleguitera generalizabilityandusefulnessofartificialintelligenceforskincancerdiagnosticsanalgorithmvalidationstudy AT annettehchakera generalizabilityandusefulnessofartificialintelligenceforskincancerdiagnosticsanalgorithmvalidationstudy AT mortenrhannemose generalizabilityandusefulnessofartificialintelligenceforskincancerdiagnosticsanalgorithmvalidationstudy |