ArticleSkin health and disease2026
Real-world diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence in skin cancer screening.
Article in Skin health and disease, 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: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in many aspects of society is expanding rapidly. AI has recently been employed in the National Health Service skin cancer referral pathway. We sought to assess the real-world diagnostic performance of AI in this setting. Objectives: To assess the real-world diagnostic performance, at the histopathological level, of AI employed in the urgent skin cancer screening pathway. Methods: This was a prospective observational study of the first 3 months of skin cancer referrals assessed by the Deep Ensemble for Recognition of Malignancy (DERM) AI algorithm in a tertiary care dermatology department in the North West of England. All lesions assessed by the algorithm were included in the analysis. Participant data were retrieved from medical records. Outcomes assessed included the AI diagnosis, whether a human review of AI diagnosis occurred, the face-to-face dermatologist's diagnosis and the outcome of the dermatologist's assessment. Comparison was made particularly between the final histopathological diagnosis, and AI and dermatologist diagnoses. Results: AI had a sensitivity of 95.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 90.5-98.1], which compared favourably with dermatologists (88.5%, 95% CI 82.3-93.2; Conclusions: AI has high sensitivity in the detection of skin cancer. However, the diagnostic accuracy of the information provided by AI to clinicians is low and could be further optimized to reduce the risk of automation bias. Furthermore, this study suggests the removal of human validation of AI decisions may be premature due to the potential for missed cancer diagnoses.
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.