Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39199716›Full record

ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Deep Learning Techniques for the Dermoscopic Differential Diagnosis of Benign/Malignant Melanocytic Skin Lesions: From the Past to the Present.

Linda Tognetti, Chiara Miracapillo, Simone Leonardelli, Alessio Luschi, Ernesto Iadanza, Gabriele Cevenini, Pietro Rubegni, Alessandra Cartocci

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper 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
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

8 authors.

Linda TognettiDermatology Unit, Deparment of Medical, Surgical and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Viale Bracci 16, 53100 Siena, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6691-4310
Chiara MiracapilloDermatology Unit, Deparment of Medical, Surgical and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Viale Bracci 16, 53100 Siena, Italy.
Simone LeonardelliDermatology Unit, Deparment of Medical, Surgical and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Viale Bracci 16, 53100 Siena, Italy.ORCID 0009-0007-7982-975X
Alessio LuschiBioengineering and Biomedical Data Science Lab, Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7615-9187
Ernesto IadanzaBioengineering and Biomedical Data Science Lab, Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7291-4990
Gabriele CeveniniBioengineering and Biomedical Data Science Lab, Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7212-573X
Pietro RubegniDermatology Unit, Deparment of Medical, Surgical and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Viale Bracci 16, 53100 Siena, Italy.
Alessandra CartocciDermatology Unit, Deparment of Medical, Surgical and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Viale Bracci 16, 53100 Siena, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1818-6275

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been growing scientific interest in the research field of deep learning techniques applied to skin cancer diagnosis in the last decade. Though encouraging data have been globally reported, several discrepancies have been observed in terms of study methodology, result presentations and validation in clinical settings. The present review aimed to screen the scientific literature on the application of DL techniques to dermoscopic melanoma/nevi differential diagnosis and extrapolate those original studies adequately by reporting on a DL model, comparing them among clinicians and/or another DL architecture. The second aim was to examine those studies together according to a standard set of statistical measures, and the third was to provide dermatologists with a comprehensive explanation and definition of the most used artificial intelligence (AI) terms to better/further understand the scientific literature on this topic and, in parallel, to be updated on the newest applications in the medical dermatologic field, along with a historical perspective. After screening nearly 2000 records, a subset of 54 was selected. Comparing the 20 studies reporting on convolutional neural network (CNN)/deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) models, we have a scenario of highly performant DL algorithms, especially in terms of low false positive results, with average values of accuracy (83.99%), sensitivity (77.74%), and specificity (80.61%). Looking at the comparison with diagnoses by clinicians (13 studies), the main difference relies on the specificity values, with a +15.63% increase for the CNN/DCNN models (average specificity of 84.87%) compared to humans (average specificity of 64.24%) with a 14,85% gap in average accuracy; the sensitivity values were comparable (79.77% for DL and 79.78% for humans). To obtain higher diagnostic accuracy and feasibility in clinical practice, rather than in experimental retrospective settings, future DL models should be based on a large dataset integrating dermoscopic images with relevant clinical and anamnestic data that is prospectively tested and adequately compared with physicians.

Indexed as

algorithmsartificial intelligenceatypical neviconvolutional neural networksdeep learningdiagnostic modelsmelanocytic skin lesionsmelanomanevi

Identifiers

PMID39199716
PMCPMC11351129

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.