Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31617929›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2019

Assessment of Accuracy of an Artificial Intelligence Algorithm to Detect Melanoma in Images of Skin Lesions.

Michael Phillips, Helen Marsden, Wayne Jaffe, Rubeta N Matin, Gorav N Wali, Jack Greenhalgh, Emily McGrath, Rob James, Evmorfia Ladoyanni, Anthony Bewley and 2 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT05689437 (MIRA Clinical Learning Environment), which is not on this map. Cited by 96 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05689437 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

MIRA Clinical Learning Environment (MIRACLE): Lung

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity Health Network, TorontoRan2022 to 2023Enrolled1,000ConditionsLung CancerArmsApplication of ILD prediction machine learning model to planning imaging, Routine, automatic presentation of ILD risk level for evaluation by the clinician., Application of SGR machine learning model to diagnostic and planning imaging, Routine estimation of tumor specific growth rate (SGR) for lesions being considered for radiation therapy presented to clinician., Application of CBCT machine learning model to on-treatment imaging
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

96 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 215 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

36 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael PhillipsHarry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Helen MarsdenSkin Analytics Limited, London, United Kingdom.
Wayne JaffeRoyal Stoke University Hospital, University Hospital North Midlands, Stoke, United Kingdom.
Rubeta N MatinOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Gorav N WaliOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jack GreenhalghSkin Analytics Limited, London, United Kingdom.
Emily McGrathRoyal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Rob JamesRoyal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Evmorfia LadoyanniDudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Corbett Hospital, Stourbridge, United Kingdom.
Anthony BewleyBarts Health, London, United Kingdom.
Giuseppe ArgenzianoDermatology Unit, University of Campania, Naples, Italy.
Ioulios PalamarasBarnet and Chase Farm Hospitals, Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBRoyal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust · GBBarts Health NHS Trust · GBCorbett Hospital · GBRoyal Stoke University Hospital · GBThe Royal Free Hospital · GBUniversity of Western Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: A high proportion of suspicious pigmented skin lesions referred for investigation are benign. Techniques to improve the accuracy of melanoma diagnoses throughout the patient pathway are needed to reduce the pressure on secondary care and pathology services. Objective: To determine the accuracy of an artificial intelligence algorithm in identifying melanoma in dermoscopic images of lesions taken with smartphone and digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) cameras. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, multicenter, single-arm, masked diagnostic trial took place in dermatology and plastic surgery clinics in 7 UK hospitals. Dermoscopic images of suspicious and control skin lesions from 514 patients with at least 1 suspicious pigmented skin lesion scheduled for biopsy were captured on 3 different cameras. Data were collected from January 2017 to July 2018. Clinicians and the Deep Ensemble for Recognition of Malignancy, a deterministic artificial intelligence algorithm trained to identify melanoma in dermoscopic images of pigmented skin lesions using deep learning techniques, assessed the likelihood of melanoma. Initial data analysis was conducted in September 2018; further analysis was conducted from February 2019 to August 2019. Interventions: Clinician and algorithmic assessment of melanoma. Main Outcomes and Measures: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity of the algorithmic and specialist assessment, determined using histopathology diagnosis as the criterion standard. Results: The study population of 514 patients included 279 women (55.7%) and 484 white patients (96.8%), with a mean (SD) age of 52.1 (18.6) years. A total of 1550 images of skin lesions were included in the analysis (551 [35.6%] biopsied lesions; 999 [64.4%] control lesions); 286 images (18.6%) were used to train the algorithm, and a further 849 (54.8%) images were missing or unsuitable for analysis. Of the biopsied lesions that were assessed by the algorithm and specialists, 125 (22.7%) were diagnosed as melanoma. Of these, 77 (16.7%) were used for the primary analysis. The algorithm achieved an AUROC of 90.1% (95% CI, 86.3%-94.0%) for biopsied lesions and 95.8% (95% CI, 94.1%-97.6%) for all lesions using iPhone 6s images; an AUROC of 85.8% (95% CI, 81.0%-90.7%) for biopsied lesions and 93.8% (95% CI, 91.4%-96.2%) for all lesions using Galaxy S6 images; and an AUROC of 86.9% (95% CI, 80.8%-93.0%) for biopsied lesions and 91.8% (95% CI, 87.5%-96.1%) for all lesions using DSLR camera images. At 100% sensitivity, the algorithm achieved a specificity of 64.8% with iPhone 6s images. Specialists achieved an AUROC of 77.8% (95% CI, 72.5%-81.9%) and a specificity of 69.9%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the algorithm demonstrated an ability to identify melanoma from dermoscopic images of selected lesions with an accuracy similar to that of specialists.

Indexed as

Deep LearningDermoscopyAdultAgedArea Under CurveBiopsyFemaleHumansMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedPhotographyProspective StudiesROC CurveSkin NeoplasmsSmartphone

Identifiers

PMID31617929
PMCPMC6806667
OpenAlexW2980349812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.