Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41660864›Full record

SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2026

Artificial Intelligence technologies for assessing skin lesions for referral on the urgent suspected cancer pathway to detect benign lesions and reduce secondary care specialist appointments: early value assessment.

Matthew Walton, Alexis Llewellyn, Eleonora Uphoff, Joseph Lord, Melissa Harden, Robert Hodgson, Mark Simmonds

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Matthew WaltonCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1932-3689
Alexis LlewellynCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4569-5136
Eleonora UphoffCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9759-2502
Joseph LordCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2131-782X
Melissa HardenCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2338-6869
Robert HodgsonCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6962-2893
Mark SimmondsCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1999-8515

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Skin cancers are some of the most common types of cancer. Dermatology services receive about 1.2 million referrals a year, but only a small minority are confirmed skin cancer. Artificial intelligence may be helpful in the diagnosis of skin cancer by identifying lesions that are or are not cancerous. Objectives: To investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two artificial intelligence technologies: DERM (Deep Ensemble for Recognition of Malignancy, Skin Analytics) and Moleanalyzer Pro (FotoFinder), as decision aids following a primary care referral. Methods: A rapid systematic review of evidence on the two technologies was conducted. A narrative synthesis was performed, with a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy data. Published and unpublished cost-effectiveness evidence on the named technologies, as well as other diagnostic technologies were reviewed. A conceptual model was developed that could form the basis of a full economic evaluation. Results: Four studies of DERM and two of Moleanalyzer Pro were subject to full synthesis. DERM had a sensitivity of 96.1% to detect any malignant lesion (95% confidence interval 95.4 to 96.8); at a specificity of 65.4% (95% confidence interval 64.7 to 66.1). For detecting benign lesions, the sensitivity was 71.5% (95% confidence interval 70.7 to 72.3) for a specificity of 86.2% (95% confidence interval 85.4 to 87.0). Moleanalyzer Pro had lower sensitivity, but higher specificity for detecting melanoma than face-to-face dermatologists. DERM might lead to around half of all patients being discharged without assessment by a dermatologist, but a small number of malignant lesions would be missed. Patient and clinical opinions showed substantial resistance to using artificial intelligence without any assessment of lesions by a dermatologist. No published assessments of the cost-effectiveness of the technologies were identified; three assessments related to skin cancer more broadly in a National Health Service setting were identified. These studies employed similar model structures, but the mechanism by which diagnostic accuracy influenced costs and health outcomes differed. An unpublished cost-utility model was provided by Skin Analytics. Several issues with the modelling approach were identified, particularly the mechanisms by which value is driven and how diagnostic accuracy evidence was used. The conceptual model presents an alternative approach, which aligns more closely with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case and which more appropriately characterises the long-term consequences of basal cell carcinoma. Limitations: The rapid review approach meant that some relevant material may have been missed, and capacity for synthesis was limited. The proposed conceptual model does not capture non-cash benefits associated with demand on dermatologist time. An assessment of the likely budget impact and resource use could not be provided. Conclusions: DERM shows promising diagnostic accuracy for triage and diagnosis of suspicious cancer lesions in selected patients referred from primary care. Its impact on the diagnostic pathway and patient care is, however, uncertain. Moleanalyzer Pro shows promising accuracy for diagnosing melanoma, but its evidence base is limited. Future work: While artificial intelligence has the potential to be cost-effective for the identification of benign lesions, further research addressing the limitations in the diagnostic accuracy evidence is necessary. Without comparative evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence technologies, their value will remain uncertain. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42023475705. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR136014) and is published in full in

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceReferral and ConsultationSkin NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisHumansSecondary Health CareSensitivity and SpecificityTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCEDIAGNOSTIC TESTINGECONOMIC EVALUATIONMELANOMASKIN CANCERSYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Identifiers

PMID41660864
PMCPMC12951253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.