Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40802539›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2025

Deep Learning Multi-Modal Melanoma Detection: Algorithm Development and Validation.

Nithika Vivek, Karthik Ramesh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Nithika VivekDel Norte High School, 16601 Nighthawk Ln, San Diego, CA, 92127, United States, 1 619 458 5059.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-7927-1584
Karthik RameshDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2938-7942

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The visual similarity of melanoma and seborrheic keratosis has made it difficult for older patients with disabilities to know when to seek medical attention, contributing to the metastasis of melanoma. Objective: This study aimed to present a novel multimodal deep learning-based technique to distinguish between melanoma and seborrheic keratosis. Methods: Our strategy is three-fold: (1) use patient image data to train and test three deep learning models using transfer learning (ResNet50, InceptionV3, and VGG16) and one author-designed model, (2) use patient metadata to train and test a deep learning model, and (3) combine the predictions of the image model with the best accuracy and the metadata model, using nonlinear least squares regression to specify ideal weights to each model for a combined prediction. Results: The accuracy of the combined model was 88% (195/221 classified correctly) on test data from the HAM10000 dataset. Model reliability was assessed by visualizing the output activation map of each model and comparing the diagnosis patterns to that of dermatologists. The addition of metadata to the image dataset was key to reducing the false-negative and false-positive rates simultaneously, thereby producing better metrics and improving overall model accuracy. Conclusions: Results from this experiment could be used to eliminate late diagnosis of melanoma via easy access to an app. Future experiments can use text data (subjective data pertaining to how the patient felt over a certain period of time) to allow this model to reflect the real hospital setting to a greater extent.

Indexed as

accuracyartificial intelligencecomputer visiondeep learningdermatologygeriatricmelanomametastasismulti modalpatient image dataseborrheic keratosis

Identifiers

PMID40802539
PMCPMC12346184

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.