ArticleActa dermato-venereologica2022
Hyperspectral Imaging for Non-invasive Diagnostics of Melanocytic Lesions.
Article in Acta dermato-venereologica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medical hyperspectral imaging: an updated review of technology advancements and biomedical applications.Journal of biomedical optics · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Novel Optical Imaging Techniques for Melanoma Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of dermatology · 2025Pooled it
- Hyperspectral Imaging for Lateral Tumour Demarcation of High-risk Basal Cell Carcinomas during Mohs Micrographic Surgery.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2025Article
- Review of Non-Invasive Imaging Technologies for Cutaneous Melanoma.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Hyperspectral Imaging Database of Human Facial Skin.Applied spectroscopy · 2025Article
- Advancing hyperspectral imaging and machine learning tools toward clinical adoption in tissue diagnostics: A comprehensive review.APL bioengineering · 2024Review
- Viewing early life without labels: optical approaches for imaging the early embryo†.Biology of reproduction · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Malignant melanoma poses a clinical diagnostic problem, since a large number of benign lesions are excised to find a single melanoma. This study assessed the accuracy of a novel non-invasive diagnostic technology, hyperspectral imaging, for melanoma detection. Lesions were imaged prior to excision and histopathological analysis. A deep neural network algorithm was trained twice to distinguish between histopathologically verified malignant and benign melanocytic lesions and to classify the separate subgroups. Furthermore, 2 different approaches were used: a majority vote classification and a pixel-wise classification. The study included 325 lesions from 285 patients. Of these, 74 were invasive melanoma, 88 melanoma in situ, 115 dysplastic naevi, and 48 non-dysplastic naevi. The study included a training set of 358,800 pixels and a validation set of 7,313 pixels, which was then tested with a training set of 24,375 pixels. The majority vote classification achieved high overall sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 92% (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.024-0.029) in differentiating malignant from benign lesions. In the pixel-wise classification, the overall sensitivity and specificity were both 82% (95% CI 0.005-0.005). When divided into 4 subgroups, the diagnostic accuracy was lower. Hyperspectral imaging provides high sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing between naevi and melanoma. This novel method still needs further validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.