Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42540091›Full record

ArticleSkin health and disease2026

Real-world diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence in skin cancer screening.

Charles H Earnshaw, Karmen Cheung, Fasiha Arshad, Ross Moore, Ali Al-Janabi, Emma McMullen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Charles H EarnshawDermatology Centre, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust & Division of Musculoskeletal and Dermatological Sciences, Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester,UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7926-8506
Karmen CheungDepartment of Dermatology, Salford Royal Hospital, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Fasiha ArshadDepartment of Dermatology, Salford Royal Hospital, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Ross MooreDepartment of Dermatology, Salford Royal Hospital, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Ali Al-JanabiDermatology Centre, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust & Division of Musculoskeletal and Dermatological Sciences, Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester,UK.
Emma McMullenDepartment of Dermatology, Salford Royal Hospital, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42540091
PMCPMC13425094

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.