Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35664971›Full record

ArticleSkin health and disease2021

Quantifying acceptable artefact ranges for dermatologic classification algorithms.

T C Petrie, C Larson, M Heath, R Samatham, A Davis, E G Berry, S A Leachman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Skin health and disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
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

7 authors.

T C PetrieDepartment of Dermatology Oregon Health & Science University Portland Oregon USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3586-4274
C LarsonDepartment of Dermatology Oregon Health & Science University Portland Oregon USA.
M HeathDepartment of Dermatology Oregon Health & Science University Portland Oregon USA.
R SamathamDepartment of Dermatology Oregon Health & Science University Portland Oregon USA.
A DavisDepartment of Dermatology Oregon Health & Science University Portland Oregon USA.
E G BerryDepartment of Dermatology Oregon Health & Science University Portland Oregon USA.
S A LeachmanDepartment of Dermatology Oregon Health & Science University Portland Oregon USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Many classifiers have been developed that can distinguish different types of skin lesions (e.g., benign nevi, melanoma) with varying degrees of success. Objectives: We created a system that measures the impact of various artefacts on machine learning accuracy. Our objectives were to (1) quantitatively identify the most egregious artefacts and (2) demonstrate how to assess a classification algorithm's accuracy when input images include artefacts. Methods: We injected artefacts into dermatologic images using techniques that could be controlled with a single variable. This allows us to quantitatively evaluate the impact on the accuracy. We trained two convolutional neural networks on two different binary classification tasks and measured the impact on dermoscopy images over a range of parameter values. The area under the curve and specificity-at-a-given-sensitivity values were measured for each artefact induced at each parameter. Results: General blur had the strongest negative effect on the Conclusions: Classifiers should either mitigate artefacts or detect them. Images should be excluded from diagnosis/recommendation when artefacts are present in amounts outside the machine perceived quality range. Failure to do so will reduce accuracy and impede approval from regulatory agencies.

Identifiers

PMID35664971
PMCPMC9060017

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.