ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2026
Artificial intelligence-based classification of Spitz tumors.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spitz tumors are diagnostically challenging due to overlap in atypical histological features with conventional melanomas. We investigated to what extent artificial intelligence (AI) models, using histological and/or clinical features, can: (1) distinguish Spitz tumors from conventional melanomas; (2) predict the underlying genetic aberration of Spitz tumors; and (3) predict the diagnostic category of Spitz tumors. The AI models were developed and validated using a retrospective cohort from the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. The dataset consisted of 393 Spitz tumors and 379 conventional melanomas. Predictive performance was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the accuracy. The performance of the AI models was compared with that of four experienced pathologists in a reader study. Moreover, a simulation experiment was conducted to investigate the impact of implementing AI-based recommendations for ancillary diagnostic testing on the workflow of the pathology department. The best AI model based on UNI features reached an AUROC of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.98) and an accuracy of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.81-0.91) in differentiating Spitz tumors from conventional melanomas. The genetic aberration was predicted with an accuracy of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.64) compared to 0.25 for randomly guessing. The diagnostic category was predicted with an accuracy of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.40-0.60), where random chance-level accuracy equaled 0.33. On all three tasks, the AI models performed better than the four pathologists, although differences were not statistically significant for most individual comparisons. Based on the simulation experiment, implementing AI-based recommendations for ancillary diagnostic testing could reduce material costs, turnaround times, and examinations. In conclusion, the AI models achieved a strong predictive performance in distinguishing between Spitz tumors and conventional melanomas. On the more challenging tasks of predicting the genetic aberration and the diagnostic category of Spitz tumors, the AI models performed better than random chance.
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.