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.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Dermatology.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026Review
- Assessment of high- and low-risk histopathologic subtypes of basal cell carcinoma using artificial intelligence and dermatologist evaluation.JAAD international · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Development of a Transfer Learning-Based, Multimodal Neural Network for Identifying Malignant Dermatological Lesions From Smartphone Images.Cancer informatics · 2025Article
- 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) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.