Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38711781›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024

Current status of artificial intelligence methods for skin cancer survival analysis: a scoping review.

Celine M Schreidah, Emily R Gordon, Oluwaseyi Adeuyan, Caroline Chen, Brigit A Lapolla, Joshua A Kent, George Bingham Reynolds, Lauren M Fahmy, Chunhua Weng, Nicholas P Tatonetti and 3 more

Abstract readScoping Review
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. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Diagnosis melanoma with artificial intelligence systems: A meta-analysis study and systematic review.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Artificial Intelligence Algorithm Predicts Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

13 authors.

Celine M SchreidahVagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Emily R GordonVagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Oluwaseyi AdeuyanVagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Caroline ChenVagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Brigit A LapollaDepartment of Dermatology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, United States.
Joshua A KentJacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, United States.
George Bingham ReynoldsThe Data Science Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Lauren M FahmyVagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Chunhua WengThe Data Science Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Nicholas P TatonettiThe Data Science Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Herbert S ChaseDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Itsik Pe'erThe Data Science Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Larisa J GeskinDepartment of Dermatology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, United States.

Funding

Fair Phenotype Annotation and Genomic ReinterpretationR01HG013031 · NHGRI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Wendy K Chung, CHUNHUA WENG · 2023 to 2026
$3.5M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG013031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Skin cancer mortality rates continue to rise, and survival analysis is increasingly needed to understand who is at risk and what interventions improve outcomes. However, current statistical methods are limited by inability to synthesize multiple data types, such as patient genetics, clinical history, demographics, and pathology and reveal significant multimodal relationships through predictive algorithms. Advances in computing power and data science enabled the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), which synthesizes vast amounts of data and applies algorithms that enable personalized diagnostic approaches. Here, we analyze AI methods used in skin cancer survival analysis, focusing on supervised learning, unsupervised learning, deep learning, and natural language processing. We illustrate strengths and weaknesses of these approaches with examples. Our PubMed search yielded 14 publications meeting inclusion criteria for this scoping review. Most publications focused on melanoma, particularly histopathologic interpretation with deep learning. Such concentration on a single type of skin cancer amid increasing focus on deep learning highlight growing areas for innovation; however, it also demonstrates opportunity for additional analysis that addresses other types of cutaneous malignancies and expands the scope of prognostication to combine both genetic, histopathologic, and clinical data. Moreover, researchers may leverage multiple AI methods for enhanced benefit in analyses. Expanding AI to this arena may enable improved survival analysis, targeted treatments, and outcomes.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedeep learningmachine learningnatural language processingoncologyskin cancersupervised learningunsupervised learning

Identifiers

PMID38711781
PMCPMC11070520

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.