Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38585154›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024

Accuracy of an artificial intelligence as a medical device as part of a UK-based skin cancer teledermatology service.

Helen Marsden, Polychronis Kemos, Marcello Venzi, Mariana Noy, Shameera Maheswaran, Nicholas Francis, Christopher Hyde, Daniel Mullarkey, Dilraj Kalsi, Lucy Thomas

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04123678 (Impact of an Artificial Intelligence Platform), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT04123678 completednot on this map

Impact of an Artificial Intelligence Platform (DERM) on the Healthcare Resource Utilisation (HRU) Needed to Diagnose Skin Cancer When Used as Part of a United Kingdom-based Teledermatology Service

TypeobservationalSponsorSkin Analytics LimitedRan2020 to 2021Enrolled700ConditionsMelanoma, Non-melanoma Skin CancerArmsDeep Ensemble for the Recognition of Malignancy (DERM)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Current Trends in AI and Eye Disease Diagnostics.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
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

10 authors.

Helen MarsdenSkin Analytics Ltd., London, United Kingdom.
Polychronis KemosBlizard Institute, The Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Marcello VenziSkin Analytics Ltd., London, United Kingdom.
Mariana NoyChelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Shameera MaheswaranChelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Nicholas FrancisImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, St Mary's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Christopher HydeExeter Test Group, Department of Health and Community Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Daniel MullarkeySkin Analytics Ltd., London, United Kingdom.
Dilraj KalsiSkin Analytics Ltd., London, United Kingdom.
Lucy ThomasChelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: An artificial intelligence as a medical device (AIaMD), built on convolutional neural networks, has demonstrated high sensitivity for melanoma. To be of clinical value, it needs to safely reduce referral rates. The primary objective of this study was to demonstrate that the AIaMD had a higher rate of correctly classifying lesions that did not need to be referred for biopsy or urgent face-to-face dermatologist review, compared to teledermatology standard of care (SoC), while achieving the same sensitivity to detect malignancy. Secondary endpoints included the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and number needed to biopsy to identify one case of melanoma or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) by both the AIaMD and SoC. Methods: This prospective, single-centre, single-arm, masked, non-inferiority, adaptive, group sequential design trial recruited patients referred to a teledermatology cancer pathway (clinicaltrials.gov NCT04123678). Additional dermoscopic images of each suspicious lesion were taken using a smartphone with a dermoscopic lens attachment. The images were assessed independently by a consultant dermatologist and the AIaMD. The outputs were compared with the final histological or clinical diagnosis. Results: A total of 700 patients with 867 lesions were recruited, of which 622 participants with 789 lesions were included in the per-protocol (PP) population. In total, 63.3% of PP participants were female; 89.0% identified as white, and the median age was 51 (range 18-95); and all Fitzpatrick skin types were represented including 25/622 (4.0%) type IV-VI skin. A total of 67 malignant lesions were identified, including 8 diagnosed as melanoma. The AIaMD sensitivity was set at 91 and 92.5%, to match the literature-defined clinician sensitivity (91.46%) as closely as possible. In both settings, the AIaMD identified had a significantly higher rate of identifying lesions that did not need a biopsy or urgent referral compared to SoC ( Discussion: The AIaMD identified significantly more lesions that did not need to be referred for biopsy or urgent face-to-face dermatologist review, compared to teledermatologists. This has the potential to reduce the burden of unnecessary referrals when used as part of a teledermatology service.

Indexed as

AI as a medical deviceartificial intelligencedeep ensemble for the recognition of malignancy (DERM)skin analyticsskin cancerteledermatology

Identifiers

PMID38585154
PMCPMC10996444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.