ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Accuracy of an artificial intelligence as a medical device as part of a UK-based skin cancer teledermatology service.
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.
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.
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
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prospective Evidence on Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Melanoma Diagnostics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA dermatology · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence technologies for assessing skin lesions for referral on the urgent suspected cancer pathway to detect benign lesions and reduce secondary care specialist appointments: early value assessment.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Current Trends in AI and Eye Disease Diagnostics.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- Automated Skin Lesion and Cancer Detection Using Computer Vision: A Comprehensive Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- How good are artificial intelligence tools at identifying benign skin lesions? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the specificity of artificial intelligence tools in diagnosing suspicious skin lesions.Skin health and disease · 2026Review
- Clinical Trial Design and Regulatory Requirements for Artificial Intelligence as a Medical Device: A PRISMA-ScR-Guided Scoping Review of Global Guidance and Evidence (2017-2025).Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Does Teledermatology Enable Earlier Diagnosis of Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma Than Face-to-face Consultation?Acta dermato-venereologica · 2025Article
- Bridging technology and medicine: artificial intelligence in targeted anticancer drug delivery.RSC advances · 2025Review
- Mitigated deployment strategy for ethical AI in clinical settings.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- Consternation as Congress proposal for autonomous prescribing AI coincides with the haphazard cuts at the FDA.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Mini review on skin biopsy: traditional and modern techniques.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Navigating the AI tide: challenges, opportunities, and future directions for early-career dermatologists.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Patient perspectives of artificial intelligence as a medical device in a skin cancer pathway.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Real-world post-deployment performance of a novel machine learning-based digital health technology for skin lesion assessment and suggestions for post-market surveillance.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of an image analyzing AI-based Digital Health Technology to identify Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer and other skin lesions: results of the DERM-003 study.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- AI-Assisted Dermatology in Provider Shortage Areas: A Systematic Review of Access and Wait Time Outcomes.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatologyReview
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.