Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39648687›Full record

ArticleJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV2025

Effect of patient-contextual skin images in human- and artificial intelligence-based diagnosis of melanoma: Results from the 2020 SIIM-ISIC melanoma classification challenge.

Nicholas R Kurtansky, Clare A Primiero, Brigid Betz-Stablein, Marc Combalia, Pascale Guitera, Allan Halpern, Jonathan Kentley, Harald Kittler, Konstantinos Liopyris, Josep Malvehy and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Does AI need anything more than a single image to diagnose melanoma?Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2025
    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

15 authors.

Nicholas R KurtanskyDermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6745-0386
Clare A PrimieroFrazer Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2944-0013
Brigid Betz-StableinFrazer Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3876-501X
Marc CombaliaMelanoma Unit, Dermatology Department, Hospital Cĺınic Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain.
Pascale GuiteraMelanoma Institute Australia and Sydney Melanoma Diagnostic Center, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Allan HalpernDermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7320-1901
Jonathan KentleyDermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York, USA.
Harald KittlerDepartment of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Konstantinos LiopyrisUniversity of Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9566-8238
Josep MalvehyMelanoma Unit, Dermatology Department, Hospital Cĺınic Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain.
Christoph RinnerCenter for Medical Data Science, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3847-5664
Philipp TschandlDepartment of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0391-7810
Jochen WeberDermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York, USA.
Veronica RotembergDermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York, USA.
H Peter SoyerFrazer Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
M-ISIC: A Multimodal Open-Source International Skin Imaging Collaboration Informatics Platform for Automated Skin Cancer DetectionU24CA264369 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI Kivanc Kose, Veronica Miriam Rotemberg · 2022 to 2026
$3.9M
ISIC-REPO; ISIC Skin Imaging Repository Enhancements for Promoting Interoperability and UtilizationU24CA285296 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI ALLAN C HALPERN, Kivanc Kose · 2024 to 2026
$2.1M
Australian Cancer Research FoundationMelanoma Centre of Research Excellence 2006551Melanoma Centre of Research Excellence 614197NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS U24 CA264369NCI NIH HHS U24 CA285296NIH HHS P30 CA008748NIH HHS U24-CA264369NIH HHS U24-CA285296
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile the high accuracy of reported AI tools for melanoma detection is promising, the lack of holistic consideration of the patient is often criticized. Along with medical history, a dermatologist would also consider intra-patient nevi patterns, such that nevi that are different from others on a given patient are treated with suspicion.

objectiveTo evaluate whether patient-contextual lesion-images improves diagnostic accuracy for melanoma in a dermoscopic image-based AI competition and a human reader study.

methodsAn international online AI competition was held in 2020. The task was to classify dermoscopy images as melanoma or benign lesions. A multi-source dataset of dermoscopy images grouped by patient were provided, and additional use of public datasets was permitted. Competitors were judged on area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) on a private leaderboard. Concurrently, a human reader study was hosted using a subset of the test data. Participants gave their initial diagnosis of an index case (melanoma vs. benign) and were then presented with seven additional lesion-images of that patient before giving a second prediction of the index case. Outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity.

resultsThe top 50 of 3308 AI competition entries achieved AUROC scores ranging from 0.943 to 0.949. Few algorithms considered intra-patient lesion patterns and instead most evaluated images independently. The median sensitivity and specificity of human readers before receiving contextual images were 60.0% and 86.7%, and after were 60.0% and 85.7%. Human and AI algorithm performance varied by image source.

conclusionsThis study provided an open-source state-of-the-art algorithm for melanoma detection that has been evaluated at multiple centres. Patient-contextual images did not positively impact performance of AI algorithms or human readers. Providing seven contextual images and no total body image may have been insufficient to test the applicability of the intra-patient lesion patterns.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDermoscopyMelanomaSkin NeoplasmsHumansSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID39648687
PMCPMC12145458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.