ArticleDiagnostic pathology2024
Utilizing deep learning model for assessing melanocytic density in resection margins of lentigo maligna.
Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for Lentigo Maligna: Automated Margin Assessment via Sox-10-Based Melanocyte Density Mapping.Dermatopathology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Correction: Utilizing deep learning model for assessing melanocytic density in resection margins of lentigo maligna.Diagnostic pathology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical excision with clear histopathological margins is the preferred treatment to prevent progression of lentigo maligna (LM) to invasive melanoma. However, the assessment of resection margins on sun-damaged skin is challenging. We developed a deep learning model for detection of melanocytes in resection margins of LM.
methodsIn total, 353 whole slide images (WSIs) were included. 295 WSIs were used for training and 58 for validation and testing. The algorithm was trained with 3,973 manual pixel-wise annotations. The AI analyses were compared to those of three blinded dermatopathologists and two pathology residents, who performed their evaluations without AI and AI-assisted. Immunohistochemistry (SOX10) served as the reference standard. We used a dichotomized cutoff for low and high risk of recurrence (≤ 25 melanocytes in an area of 0.5 mm for low risk and > 25 for high risk).
resultsThe AI model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.84 in discriminating margins with low and high recurrence risk. In comparison, the AUC for dermatopathologists ranged from 0.72 to 0.90 and for the residents in pathology, 0.68 to 0.80. Additionally, with aid of the AI model the performance of two pathologists significantly improved.
conclusionsThe deep learning showed notable accuracy in detecting resection margins of LM with a high versus low risk of recurrence. Furthermore, the use of AI improved the performance of 2/5 pathologists. This automated tool could aid pathologists in the assessment or pre-screening of LM margins.
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.