Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34441324›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Machine Learning and Deep Learning Methods for Skin Lesion Classification and Diagnosis: A Systematic Review.

Mohamed A Kassem, Khalid M Hosny, Robertas Damaševičius, Mohamed Meselhy Eltoukhy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Mask of Truth: Model Sensitivity to Unexpected Regions of Medical Images.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mohamed A KassemDepartment of Robotics and Intelligent Machines, Faculty of Artificial Intelligence, Kaferelshiekh University, Kaferelshiekh 33511, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0002-5150-5004
Khalid M HosnyDepartment of Information Technology, Faculty of Computers and Informatics, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44519, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0001-8065-8977
Robertas DamaševičiusDepartment of Applied Informatics, Vytautas Magnus University, 44404 Kaunas, Lithuania.ORCID 0000-0001-9990-1084
Mohamed Meselhy EltoukhyComputer Science Department, Faculty of Computers and Informatics, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0003-0205-2210

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computer-aided systems for skin lesion diagnosis is a growing area of research. Recently, researchers have shown an increasing interest in developing computer-aided diagnosis systems. This paper aims to review, synthesize and evaluate the quality of evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of computer-aided systems. This study discusses the papers published in the last five years in ScienceDirect, IEEE, and SpringerLink databases. It includes 53 articles using traditional machine learning methods and 49 articles using deep learning methods. The studies are compared based on their contributions, the methods used and the achieved results. The work identified the main challenges of evaluating skin lesion segmentation and classification methods such as small datasets, ad hoc image selection and racial bias.

Indexed as

deep learningmachine learningracial biasskin image segmentationskin lesion classificationsmall data

Identifiers

PMID34441324
PMCPMC8391467

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.