Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42346894›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging2026

When AI and Experts Agree on Error: Intrinsic Ambiguity in Dermatoscopic Images.

Loris Cino, Pier Luigi Mazzeo, Alessandro Martella, Giulia Radi, Renato Rossi, Cosimo Distante

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging, 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

6 authors.

Loris CinoDipartimento di Ingegneria Informatica, Automatica e Gestionale (DIAG), Sapienza Università di Roma, Via Ariosto, 25, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0005-5326-7627
Pier Luigi MazzeoIstituto di Scienze Applicate e Sistemi Intelligenti (ISASI), Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Via Monteroni s.n, 73100 Lecce, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7552-2394
Alessandro MartellaDermatologia Myskin, Poliambulatorio Specialistico Medico-Chirurgico, Via S. Marco, 21, 73030 Tiggiano, Italy.ORCID 0009-0002-4793-3337
Giulia RadiAST Pesaro-Urbino, Via Borsellino 4, 60019 Fano, Italy.
Renato RossiLa Rocca Skin Medical Center, Via Marchetti, 110, 61122 Senigallia, Italy.
Cosimo DistanteIstituto di Scienze Applicate e Sistemi Intelligenti (ISASI), Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Via Monteroni s.n, 73100 Lecce, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1073-2390

Funding

Ministero dell'università e della ricerca B53C22003630006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly convolutional neural networks (CNNs), into dermatological diagnosis demonstrates substantial clinical potential. While the existing literature predominantly benchmarks algorithmic performance against human experts, our study adopts a novel perspective by investigating the intrinsic complexity of dermatoscopic images. Through rigorous experimentation with multiple CNN architectures, we isolated a subset of images systematically misclassified across all models-a phenomenon statistically proven to exceed random chance. To determine whether these failures stem from algorithmic biases or inherent visual ambiguity, expert dermatologists independently evaluated these challenging cases alongside a control group. The results revealed a collapse in human diagnostic performance on the AI-misclassified images. First, agreement with ground-truth labels plummeted, with Cohen's kappa dropping to a mere 0.08 for this subset, compared to 0.61 for the control group. Second, we observed a severe deterioration in expert consensus; inter-rater reliability among physicians fell from moderate concordance (Fleiss' kappa = 0.456) on control images to only modest agreement (Fleiss' kappa = 0.275) on the misclassified subset. We identified image quality as a primary driver of these dual systematic failures. To promote transparency and reproducibility, all data, code, and trained models have been made publicly available.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (AI)convolutional neural networks (CNNs)deep learningdermatologyimage qualitymachine learning (ML)medical image analysisstatistical analysis

Identifiers

PMID42346894
PMCPMC13302442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.