The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Diagnostic Inaccuracy of Smartphone Applications for Melanoma Detection
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the performance of smartphone applications that evaluate photographs of skin lesions and provide the user with feedback about the likelihood of malignancy. DESIGN: Case-control diagnostic accuracy study. SETTING: Academic dermatology department. PARTICIPANTS AND MATERIALS: Digital clinical images of pigmented cutaneous lesions (60 melanoma and 128 benign control lesions) with a histologic diagnosis rendered by a board-certified dermatopathologist, obtained before biopsy from patients undergoing lesion removal as a part of routine care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 4 smartphone applications designed to aid nonclinician users in determining whether their skin lesion is benign or malignant. RESULTS: Sensitivity of the 4 tested applications ranged from 6.8% to 98.1%; specificity, 30.4% to 93.7%; positive predictive value, 33.3% to 42.1%; and negative predictive value, 65.4% to 97.0%. The highest sensitivity for melanoma diagnosis was observed for an application that sends the image directly to a board-certified dermatologist for analysis; the lowest, for applications that use automated algorithms to analyze images. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of smartphone applications in assessing melanoma risk is highly variable, and 3 of 4 smartphone applications incorrectly classified 30% or more of melanomas as unconcerning. Reliance on these applications, which are not subject to regulatory oversight, in lieu of medical consultation can delay the diagnosis of melanoma and harm users.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Regarding automated smartphone apps, the major concerns are the lack of assessment in clinical practice conditions, the lack of assessment in primary care populations, and their low sensitivity, ranging from 7% to 87% (median 69%).”
From Use of Smartphones for Early Detection of Melanoma: Systematic Review (2018) · cites this paper as [49]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Across the body of evidence presented, different apps recommended conflicting management advice for the same lesions.23 34”
From Algorithm based smartphone apps to assess risk of skin cancer in adults: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies (2020) · cites this paper as [34]
In the citing paper
“We found studies were based on images of suspicious skin lesions that had undergone excision or biopsy, and were further selected to only include conditions identified by the apps; for example, they excluded lesions with clinical and histological features similar to melanoma,34 or restricted inclusion to melanocytic lesions which are more likely to be recognised by apps.23 28 29 31 32”
From Algorithm based smartphone apps to assess risk of skin cancer in adults: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies (2020) · cites this paper as [34]
In the citing paper
“Table 2, table 3, and figure 2 report the numbers excluded for each analysis because of test failure, which ranged from 3/188 (1.6%)34 to 90/199 (45.2%).30”
From Algorithm based smartphone apps to assess risk of skin cancer in adults: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies (2020) · cites this paper as [34]
In the citing paper
“However, a recent comparison of the accuracy of four smartphone apps in assessing melanoma risk demonstrated wide variation in performance and utility.7”
From Smartphone applications for melanoma detection by community, patient and generalist clinician users: a review (2015) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“a recent report highlighted the diagnostic inaccuracies of four smartphone apps for melanoma detection, with wide variations in sensitivity and specificity to detect malignant skin lesions.7”
From Smartphone applications for melanoma detection by community, patient and generalist clinician users: a review (2015) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“Reviews of smartphone apps for dermatology in general, 7,11 and for colorectal cancer, 8 have reported similar findings.”
From Smartphone applications for melanoma detection by community, patient and generalist clinician users: a review (2015) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“many experts remain cautious about the utility of the thousands of apps currently available, either free or at a small charge, for the prevention, detection and management of cancer.6,7”
From Smartphone applications for melanoma detection by community, patient and generalist clinician users: a review (2015) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“Cautionary commentary has also appeared suggesting that results obtained with publicly available smartphone dermatology applications may be highly variable and unreliable [51].”
From Recent directions in telemedicine: Review of trends in research and practice (2015) · cites this paper as [51]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Monheit, G. D., Cognetta, A. B., Ferris, L. K., Rabinovitz, H. S., Gross, K. G., Martini, M. C., Grichnik, J. M., Mihm, M. C., Prieto, V. G., Googe, P. B., et al. (2010) · Archives of Dermatology · doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2010.302 · Cited by 232
Self-citationIs Physician Detection Associated With Thinner Melanomas?
Epstein, D. S. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.281.7.640 · Cited by 166
Low, D., Clark, N., Soar, J., Padkin, A., Stoneham, A., Perkins, G. D., & Nolan, J. P. (2011) · Anaesthesia · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06649.x · Cited by 130
Routine Dermatologist-Performed Full-Body Skin Examination and Early Melanoma Detection
Kantor, J., & Kantor, D. E. (2009) · Archives of Dermatology · doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2009.137 · Cited by 73
Supporting Autobiographical Memory in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease Using Smart Phones
Leo, G. D., Brivio, E., & Sautter, S. W. (2011) · Applied Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09084282.2011.545730 · Cited by 46
Ciemins, E. L., Coon, P. J., & SORLI, C. H. (2010) · Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology · doi:10.1177/193229681000400427 · Cited by 38
Smart phones: new clinical tools in oncology?
Senior, K. (2011) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(11)70116-4 · Cited by 29 · cited 1×
“Two-thirds of physicians use smartphone applications in their practice.(6) Some of these applications have been evaluated in the peerreviewed literature, including instruments used to aid autobiographical memory in patients with Alzheimer disease,(7) to assist in the delivery of cardiac life support,(8) and to manage…”
BackgroundSurveillance of Patients for Early Detection of Melanoma
McGuire, S. T., Secrest, A. M., Andrulonis, R., & Ferris, L. K. (2011) · Archives of Dermatology · doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2011.135 · Cited by 27
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Artificial intelligence in healthcare
Yu, K.-H., Beam, A. L., & Kohane, I. S. (2018) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-018-0305-z · Cited by 2,817
The Rise of Consumer Health Wearables: Promises and Barriers
Piwek, L., Ellis, D. A., Andrews, S., & Joinson, A. (2016) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001953 · Cited by 1,301
Current state of melanoma diagnosis and treatment
Davis, L. E., Shalin, S. C., & Tackett, A. J. (2019) · Cancer Biology & Therapy · doi:10.1080/15384047.2019.1640032 · Cited by 986
Customer experience challenges: Bringing together digital, physical and social realms
Bolton, R. N., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Cheung, L., Gallan, A., Orsingher, C., Witell, L., & Zaki, M. (2018) · Journal of Service Management · doi:10.1108/josm-04-2018-0113 · Cited by 849
Wearable health devices in health care: narrative systematic review
Lu, L., Zhang, J., Xie, Y., Gao, F., Xu, S., Wu, X., & Ye, Z. (2020) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/18907 · Cited by 701
Metadata
- Authors
- Wolf, J. A., Moreau, J. F., Akilov, O., Patton, T., English, J. C., Ho, J., & Ferris, L. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Venue
- JAMA Dermatology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2013-04-01
- Volume
- 149
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 422
- ISSN
- 2168-6068 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4019431
- OpenAlex
- W2101764630
- Cited by
- 393
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 27
- FWCI
- 29.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Locations
- JAMA Dermatology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000005)
- National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024153)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- melanoma, mobile application, melanoma detection, diagnostic accuracy, pigmented skin lesions, automated image analysis, telemedicine
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Diagnosis, Differential, Diagnostic Errors, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Melanoma, ROC Curve, Skin Neoplasms, Software, User-Computer Interface, Video Recording, Telemedicine, Computers, Handheld, Electronic Mail, Cell Phone, Dermoscopy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
