ArticleScientific reports2026
Concept inconsistency in dermoscopic concept bottleneck models: a rough-set analysis of the Derm7pt dataset.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) are devoted to melanoma classification route predictions through a clinically grounded concept layer, which binds interpretability to concept-label consistency. When a dataset contains concept-level inconsistencies, identical concept profiles mapped to conflicting diagnosis labels create an unresolvable bottleneck that imposes a hard ceiling on achievable accuracy. In this paper, we apply rough set theory to the Derm7pt dermoscopy benchmark and characterize, for the first time, the full extent and clinical structure of this inconsistency. Among 305 unique concept profiles formed by the dermoscopic criteria of the 7-point melanoma checklist, 50 (16.4%) are inconsistent and span 306 images (30.3% of the dataset). This yields a theoretical accuracy ceiling of 92.1% for any hard CBM trained on the full raw data, where over half of all melanoma images carry concept signatures belonging to the boundary region. This disproportionate fraction shows that the checklist concepts are less discriminative for melanoma than for non-melanoma lesions. We characterize the conflict-severity distribution and identify the clinical features most responsible for boundary ambiguity. Two filtering strategies are proposed to remove images with inconsistent concept signatures, both producing a benchmark that we refer to as Derm7pt+. The symmetric strategy yields a fully consistent subset of 705 images, while the asymmetric strategy retains all melanoma images and removes only the conflicting non-melanoma counterparts, producing 841 images. We evaluate a hard CBM across 19 backbone architectures from the EfficientNet, DenseNet, ResNet, and Wide ResNet families on both Derm7pt+ variants. Under symmetric filtering, DenseNet-169 achieves the best test macro F1 of [Formula: see text], and EfficientNet-B4 leads under asymmetric filtering with a test macro F1 of [Formula: see text]. Macro-averaged concept accuracy remains moderate yet stable across all configurations, and this level of concept prediction suffices to produce solid label macro F1 scores. This shows that annotation noise rather than backbone capacity is the binding constraint on bottleneck quality. We further apply the Sparseness-Optimized Feature Importance (SOFI) explainer to the true positive melanoma predictions of the best-performing model on the symmetric Derm7pt+. We found that irregular dots and globules drives every melanoma prediction, while irregular streaks, atypical pigment network, and present blue-whitish veil form a consistent secondary tier.
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.