ArticleJMIR AI2025
Deep Learning Multi-Modal Melanoma Detection: Algorithm Development and Validation.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.