ReviewBiomedicines2026
Emerging Artificial Intelligence Models for Estimating Breslow Thickness from Dermoscopic Images.
Review in Biomedicines, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Melanoma Intelligence: Explainable AI Reveals Histopathologic Aggressiveness as the Dominant Axis of Lymph-Node Metastasis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Towards Accurate Breslow Measurements: Mitigating Issues in Histopathological Imaging.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Modelling of hybrid deep ensemble learning based skin lesion detection using FCNN denoising and inception-dilated ResNetV2.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breslow thickness (BT) is the most powerful prognostic indicator in cutaneous melanoma, yet histopathological measurement exhibits some limitations such as interobserver variability and diagnostic delays. Preoperative clinical assessment demonstrates 30% misclassification rates. This narrative review synthesizes evidence on deep learning models for non-invasive BT estimation from dermoscopic images. Convolutional neural networks (ResNet, EfficientNet, Vision Transformers) with transfer learning from ImageNet achieve up to 75-79% accuracy and AUC 0.76-0.85 on single-center datasets. Preprocessing techniques (hair removal, color normalization, data augmentation) and interpretability methods (Grad-CAM, LIME) enhance clinical applicability. However, external validation reveals performance degradation. The clinically critical thickness range (0.4-1.0 mm) demonstrates poor discrimination. Significant dataset bias exists: most training data represents lighter skin phototypes, resulting in an underrepresentation of darker skin types. AI models function as complementary decision-support tools rather than replacements for histopathology. Prospective clinical trials validating clinical utility are lacking, and regulatory approval pathways are undefined. Research priorities include diverse public datasets with balanced skin tone representation, the adoption of threshold-weighted loss functions to prioritize accuracy at the 0.8 mm surgical cut-off, multi-institutional external validation, prospective randomized trials, federated learning frameworks, and regulatory engagement. Only rigorous, equitable research can translate AI from proof-of-concept to clinically reliable tools benefiting all melanoma patients.
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.