Cited by 125Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementAI in cancer detectionArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Accuracy of Computer-Aided Diagnosis of Melanoma: A Meta-analysis

Open access
Dick, Vincent, Sinz, Christoph, Mittlböck, Martina, Kittler, Harald, Tschandl, Philipp·2019·JAMA Dermatology

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.1375

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dick, V., Sinz, C., Mittlböck, M., Kittler, H., & Tschandl, P.
Affiliations
Medical University of Vienna (AT)
Corresponding author
Kittler, Harald
Venue
JAMA Dermatology
Published
2019-11-01
Volume
155
Issue
11
Pages
1291
ISSN
2168-6068 (ISSN-L)
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
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