Cited by 25Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementAI in cancer detectionArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

A deep learning fusion network trained with clinical and high-frequency ultrasound images in the multi-classification of skin diseases in comparison with dermatologists: a prospective and multicenter study

Open access
Zhu, An-Qi, Wang, Qiao, Shi, Yi-Lei, Ren, Wei-Wei, Cao, Xu, Ren, Tian-Tian, Wang, Jing, Zhang, Ya-Qin +13 more·2024·EClinicalMedicine

Abstract

Background Clinical appearance and high-frequency ultrasound (HFUS) are indispensable for diagnosing skin diseases by providing internal and external information. However, their complex combination brings challenges for primary care physicians and dermatologists. Thus, we developed a deep multimodal fusion network (DMFN) model combining analysis of clinical close-up and HFUS images for binary and multiclass classification in skin diseases. Methods Between Jan 10, 2017, and Dec 31, 2020, the DMFN model was trained and validated using 1269 close-ups and 11,852 HFUS images from 1351 skin lesions. The monomodal convolutional neural network (CNN) model was trained and validated with the same close-up images for comparison. Subsequently, we did a prospective and multicenter study in China. Both CNN models were tested prospectively on 422 cases from 4 hospitals and compared with the results from human raters (general practitioners, general dermatologists, and dermatologists specialized in HFUS). The performance of binary classification (benign vs. malignant) and multiclass classification (the specific diagnoses of 17 types of skin diseases) measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were evaluated. This study is registered with www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2300074765). Findings The performance of the DMFN model (AUC, 0.876) was superior to that of the monomodal CNN model (AUC, 0.697) in the binary classification ( P = 0.0063), which was also better than that of the general practitioner (AUC, 0.651, P = 0.0025) and general dermatologists (AUC, 0.838; P = 0.0038). By integrating close-up and HFUS images, the DMFN model attained an almost identical performance in comparison to dermatologists (AUC, 0.876 vs. AUC, 0.891; P = 0.0080). For the multiclass classification, the DMFN model (AUC, 0.707) exhibited superior prediction performance compared with general dermatologists (AUC, 0.514; P = 0.0043) and dermatologists specialized in HFUS (AUC, 0.640; P = 0.0083), respectively. Compared to dermatologists specialized in HFUS, the DMFN model showed better or comparable performance in diagnosing 9 of the 17 skin diseases. Interpretation The DMFN model combining analysis of clinical close-up and HFUS images exhibited satisfactory performance in the binary and multiclass classification compared with the dermatologists. It may be a valuable tool for general dermatologists and primary care providers. Funding This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Clinical research project of Shanghai Skin Disease Hospital.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102391

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 46 · Cited by 25

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [27]Göçeri E. Intensity normalization in brain MR images using spatially varying distribution matching The 11th international conference on computer graphics, visualization, computer vision and image processing (CGVCVIP) 2017 300 304
  2. [45]Göçeri E. Analysis of capsule neural networks for image classification The 15th international conference on computer graphics, visualization, computer vision and image processing (CVGCVIP) 2021 1 6

Authors
Zhu, A.-Q., Wang, Q., Shi, Y.-L., Ren, W.-W., Cao, X., Ren, T.-T., Wang, J., Zhang, Y.-Q., Sun, Y.-K., Chen, X.-W., Lai, Y.-X., Ni, N., Chen, Y.-C., Hu, J.-L., Mou, L.-C., Zhao, Y.-J., Liu, Y.-Q., Sun, L.-P., Zhu, X.-X., Xu, H.-X., & Guo, L.-H.
Affiliations
  • Tongji University (CN)
  • Jiading District Central Hospital (CN)
  • Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University (CN)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Zhu, Xiao-Xiang
  • Xu, Hui-Xiong
  • Guo, Le-Hang
Venue
EClinicalMedicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-01
Volume
67
Pages
102391
ISSN
2589-5370 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4390605939
Cited by
25
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7
FWCI
4.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • EClinicalMedicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (81927801, 82001816, 82072092, 82151318)
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
skin diseases, skin lesion classification, high-frequency ultrasound, multimodal image fusion, deep learning, benign vs malignant skin lesions, dermatologist comparison, primary care diagnosis

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