ArticleCommunications medicine2026
Multimodal models for skin cancer classification using clinical freetext and dermatoscopic images.
Article in Communications medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSkin cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers globally, with early detection critical to ensure reduced mortality risk. To aid early detection, machine learning (ML) skin cancer detection models have been proposed, currently with a focus on dermatoscopic imaging only. However, freetext may provide extra diagnostic information that is not present in images alone.
methodsWe constructed a multimodal dataset comprising 5481 dermatoscopic images from 4538 patients, including patient metadata and clinical notes, with binary labels (benign vs. malignant, 7% malignant). To assess and mitigate bias from leading language, we developed a clinical text preprocessing pipeline combining regular expressions and large language models, enabling multiple levels of filtering. We train multimodal ML models on this dataset to explore the effect of freetext on model performance.
resultsOur results show that incorporating unfiltered text significantly improves classification performance (0.970 AUROC) compared to visual data alone (0.909 AUROC); even with leading language removed, performance gains persist (0.948 AUROC).
conclusionsThis work benchmarks clinical freetext inclusion in skin lesion classification, demonstrating that clinical text contributes predictive value beyond that available in images alone. The model's high performance on unfiltered clinical text highlights the high levels of bias, and possible shortcutting, present in this text which may make it unsuitable for inclusion in some ML models. By systematically filtering clinical notes via our proposed technique, we show that multimodal models retain improved accuracy while reducing bias. These results provide practical guidance for integrating clinical text into real-world skin cancer detection systems and establish a foundation for future multimodal research in dermatology.
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.