Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38742379›Full record

ArticleSkin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI)2024

Comprehensive analysis of clinical images contributions for melanoma classification using convolutional neural networks.

Jorge A Rios-Duarte, Andres C Diaz-Valencia, Germán Combariza, Miguel Feles, Ricardo A Peña-Silva

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Digital Dermatology.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Robustness of a convolutional neural network trained on dermoscopic images and challenged with close-up images.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Comprehensive analysis of clinical images contributions for melanoma classification using convolutional neural networks.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2024
    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

5 authors.

Jorge A Rios-DuarteSchool of Medicine, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0596-9158
Andres C Diaz-ValenciaSchool of Medicine, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.
Germán CombarizaDepartment of Mathematics, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.
Miguel FelesDepartment of Mathematics, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.
Ricardo A Peña-SilvaSchool of Medicine, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTimely diagnosis plays a critical role in determining melanoma prognosis, prompting the development of deep learning models to aid clinicians. Questions persist regarding the efficacy of clinical images alone or in conjunction with dermoscopy images for model training. This study aims to compare the classification performance for melanoma of three types of CNN models: those trained on clinical images, dermoscopy images, and a combination of paired clinical and dermoscopy images from the same lesion. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe divided 914 image pairs into training, validation, and test sets. Models were built using pre-trained Inception-ResNetV2 convolutional layers for feature extraction, followed by binary classification. Training comprised 20 models per CNN type using sets of random hyperparameters. Best models were chosen based on validation AUC-ROC.

resultsSignificant AUC-ROC differences were found between clinical versus dermoscopy models (0.661 vs. 0.869, p < 0.001) and clinical versus clinical + dermoscopy models (0.661 vs. 0.822, p = 0.001). Significant sensitivity differences were found between clinical and dermoscopy models (0.513 vs. 0.799, p = 0.01), dermoscopy versus clinical + dermoscopy models (0.799 vs. 1.000, p = 0.02), and clinical versus clinical + dermoscopy models (0.513 vs. 1.000, p < 0.001). Significant specificity differences were found between dermoscopy versus clinical + dermoscopy models (0.800 vs. 0.288, p < 0.001) and clinical versus clinical + dermoscopy models (0.650 vs. 0.288, p < 0.001).

conclusionCNN models trained on dermoscopy images outperformed those relying solely on clinical images under our study conditions. The potential advantages of incorporating paired clinical and dermoscopy images for CNN-based melanoma classification appear less clear based on our findings.

Indexed as

DermoscopyMelanomaNeural Networks, ComputerSkin NeoplasmsDeep LearningFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleROC CurveSensitivity and Specificityartificial intelligencedeep learningdermoscopy imagesmelanomaskin cancer

Identifiers

PMID38742379
PMCPMC11091779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.