Accuracy of Computer-Aided Diagnosis of Melanoma: A Meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
IMPORTANCE: The recent advances in the field of machine learning have raised expectations that computer-aided diagnosis will become the standard for the diagnosis of melanoma. OBJECTIVE: To critically review the current literature and compare the diagnostic accuracy of computer-aided diagnosis with that of human experts. DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE, arXiv, and PubMed Central databases were searched to identify eligible studies published between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that reported on the accuracy of automated systems for melanoma were selected. Search terms included melanoma, diagnosis, detection, computer aided, and artificial intelligence. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Evaluation of the risk of bias was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool, and quality assessment was based on predefined criteria. Data were analyzed from February 1 to March 10, 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were the primary outcomes. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 1694 potentially eligible studies, of which 132 were included and 70 offered sufficient information for a quantitative analysis. Most studies came from the field of computer science. Prospective clinical studies were rare. Combining the results for automated systems gave a melanoma sensitivity of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.80) and a specificity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.88). Sensitivity was lower in studies that used independent test sets than in those that did not (0.51; 95% CI, 0.34-0.69 vs 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.86; P < .001); however, the specificity was similar (0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.91 vs 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.88; P = .67). In comparison with dermatologists' diagnosis, computer-aided diagnosis showed similar sensitivities and a 10 percentage points lower specificity, but the difference was not statistically significant. Studies were heterogeneous and substantial risk of bias was found in all but 4 of the 70 studies included in the quantitative analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although the accuracy of computer-aided diagnosis for melanoma detection is comparable to that of experts, the real-world applicability of these systems is unknown and potentially limited owing to overfitting and the risk of bias of the studies at hand.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses have concentrated on the detection of skin cancer using image-based AI models.
“Prior systematic reviews9–11 and meta-analyses12,13 have concentrated on the detection of skin cancer using image-based AI models”
From Assessing the performance of artificial intelligence models in evaluating inflammatory skin disease severity: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [12]
Cites
ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3065386 · Cited by 112,155 · see citing works
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 · Cited by 3,369 · see citing works
Diagnostic Inaccuracy of Smartphone Applications for Melanoma Detection
Wolf, J. A., Moreau, J. F., Akilov, O., Patton, T., English, J. C., Ho, J., & Ferris, L. K. (2013) · JAMA Dermatology · doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.2382 · Cited by 393 · see citing works
Multimodal skin lesion classification using deep learning
Yap, J., Yolland, W., & Tschandl, P. (2018) · Experimental Dermatology · doi:10.1111/exd.13777 · Cited by 326 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Artificial Intelligence in Dermatology: A Primer
Young, A. T., Xiong, M., Pfau, J., Keiser, M. J., & Wei, M. L. (2020) · Journal of Investigative Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jid.2020.02.026 · Cited by 249 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence applications in dermatology: Where do we stand?
Gomolin, A., Netchiporouk, E., Gniadecki, R., & Litvinov, I. V. (2020) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2020.00100 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Systematic Review of Deep Learning Image Analyses for the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Skin Disease
Choy, S. P., Kim, B. J., Paolino, A., Tan, W. R., Lim, S. M. L., Seo, J., Tan, S. P., Francis, L., Tsakok, T., Simpson, M., et al. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00914-8 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Dissecting scientific explanation in AI (sXAI): A case for medicine and healthcare
Durán, J. M. (2021) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2021.103498 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Helenason, J., Ekström, C., Falk, M., & Papachristou, P. (2024) · Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care · doi:10.1080/02813432.2023.2283190 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Escalé-Besa, A., Vidal-Alaball, J., Miró Catalina, Q., Gracia, V. H. G., Marin-Gomez, F. X., & Fuster-Casanovas, A. (2024) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare12121192 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Cai, Z. R., Kim, J., Rezaei, S. J., Chen, M. L., Touma, F., Zhu, C., Onyeka, S., Fonjungo, F., Omiye, J. A., Krakowski, I., et al. (2025) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1093/bjd/ljaf250 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
“Prior systematic reviews 9–11 and meta-analyses 12,13 have concentrated on the detection of skin cancer using image-based AI models, with a recent review including 64 studies, of which 52 were focused on detection and 12 concentrated on severity assessment.”
- Authors
- Dick, V., Sinz, C., Mittlböck, M., Kittler, H., & Tschandl, P.
- Affiliations
- Medical University of Vienna (AT)
- Corresponding author
- Kittler, Harald
- Venue
- JAMA Dermatology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2019-11-01
- Volume
- 155
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1291
- ISSN
- 2168-6068 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6584889
- OpenAlex
- W2952313545
- Cited by
- 125
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 5.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- JAMA Dermatology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Keywords
- melanoma, computer-aided diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy, skin lesion classification, sensitivity and specificity, risk of bias, machine learning, artificial intelligence, melanoma detection, summary receiver operating characteristic, risk of bias assessment, QUADAS-2
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