ArticleCancers2026
AI in Dermato-Oncology: Diagnostic Performance and Prompt-Injection Vulnerability of Vision-Language Models in Dermoscopic Skin Cancer Assessment.
Article in Cancers, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesAccurate differentiation of benign melanocytic nevi from invasive melanoma in dermato-oncology directly informs biopsy decisions and oncological management. Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly explored for image-based skin cancer assessment, but their diagnostic reliability and robustness to adversarial input manipulation remain insufficiently characterized. We evaluated three contemporary VLMs for diagnostic performance and susceptibility to single-word adversarial input manipulation (prompt injection) on dermoscopic images of histopathologically confirmed lesions.
methodsFifty-two dermoscopic images (26 benign melanocytic nevi, 26 invasive melanomas) were analyzed using Claude Opus 4.7, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and GPT-5.4 under four conditions: an unmodified baseline and three adversarial conditions with a single opposite-of-ground-truth label embedded as a visual overlay, in image metadata, or both. Three independent rounds per image × model × condition yielded 1872 classifications across 52 lesions (independent diagnostic units) and 16,848 structured-output observations in total.
resultsBaseline diagnostic accuracy ranged from 58.3% to 62.2%, with asymmetric sensitivity and specificity, including a pronounced benign-labeling bias in one model that missed 22 of 26 invasive melanomas. All adversarial conditions reduced accuracy to near-zero levels (0.0-1.9%; all
conclusionsContemporary VLMs show limited baseline performance and marked vulnerability to minimal adversarial input in dermoscopic skin cancer assessment. The failure selectively alters the malignancy decision while preserving surrounding outputs and confidence, indicating that, within the conditions evaluated here, these systems do not currently appear suitable for unsupervised clinical use in dermato-oncology in the absence of input-integrity safeguards and qualified human oversight.
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.