Systematic outperformance of 112 dermatologists in multiclass skin cancer image classification by convolutional neural networks.
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) systematically outperformed dermatologists in distinguishing dermoscopic melanoma and nevi images. However, such a binary classification does not reflect the clinical reality of skin cancer screenings in which multiple diagnoses need to be taken into account. METHODS: Using 11,444 dermoscopic images, which covered dermatologic diagnoses comprising the majority of commonly pigmented skin lesions commonly faced in skin cancer screenings, a CNN was trained through novel deep learning techniques. A test set of 300 biopsy-verified images was used to compare the classifier's performance with that of 112 dermatologists from 13 German university hospitals. The primary end-point was the correct classification of the different lesions into benign and malignant. The secondary end-point was the correct classification of the images into one of the five diagnostic categories. FINDINGS: Sensitivity and specificity of dermatologists for the primary end-point were 74.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 67.0-81.8%) and 59.8% (95% CI: 49.8-69.8%), respectively. At equal sensitivity, the algorithm achieved a specificity of 91.3% (95% CI: 85.5-97.1%). For the secondary end-point, the mean sensitivity and specificity of the dermatologists were at 56.5% (95% CI: 42.8-70.2%) and 89.2% (95% CI: 85.0-93.3%), respectively. At equal sensitivity, the algorithm achieved a specificity of 98.8%. Two-sided McNemar tests revealed significance for the primary end-point (p < 0.001). For the secondary end-point, outperformance (p < 0.001) was achieved except for basal cell carcinoma (on-par performance). INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that automated classification of dermoscopic melanoma and nevi images is extendable to a multiclass classification problem, thus better reflecting clinical differential diagnoses, while still outperforming dermatologists at a significant level (p < 0.001).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 24 · Cited by 219
- Authors
- Maron, R. C., Weichenthal, M., Utikal, J. S., Hekler, A., Berking, C., Hauschild, A., Enk, A. H., Haferkamp, S., Klode, J., Schadendorf, D., Jansen, P., Holland-Letz, T., Schilling, B., von Kalle, C., Fröhling, S., Gaiser, M. R., Hartmann, D., Gesierich, A., Kähler, K. C., Wehkamp, U., Karoglan, A., Bär, C., Brinker, T. J., Schmitt, L., Peitsch, W. K., Hoffmann, F., Becker, J. C., Drusio, C., Jansen, P., Klode, J., Lodde, G., Sammet, S., Schadendorf, D., Sondermann, W., Ugurel, S., Zader, J., Enk, A., Salzmann, M., Schäfer, S., Schäkel, K., Winkler, J., Wölbing, P., Asper, H., Bohne, A.-S., Brown, V., Burba, B., Deffaa, S., Dietrich, C., Dietrich, M., Drerup, K. A., Egberts, F., Erkens, A.-S., Greven, S., Harde, V., Jost, M., Kaeding, M., Kosova, K., Lischner, S., Maagk, M., Messinger, A. L., Metzner, M., Motamedi, R., Rosenthal, A.-C., Seidl, U., Stemmermann, J., Torz, K., Velez, J. G., Haiduk, J., Alter, M., Bär, C., Bergenthal, P., Gerlach, A., Holtorf, C., Karoglan, A., Kindermann, S., Kraas, L., Felcht, M., Gaiser, M. R., Klemke, C.-D., Kurzen, H., Leibing, T., Müller, V., Reinhard, R. R., Utikal, J., Winter, F., Berking, C., Eicher, L., Hartmann, D., Heppt, M., Kilian, K., Krammer, S., Lill, D., Niesert, A.-C., Oppel, E., Sattler, E., Senner, S., Wallmichrath, J., Wolff, H., Giner, T., Glutsch, V., Kerstan, A., Presser, D., Schrüfer, P., Schummer, P., Stolze, I., Weber, J., Drexler, K., Haferkamp, S., Mickler, M., Stauner, C. T., & Thiem, A.
- Affiliations
- German Cancer Research Center (DE)
- University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (DE)
- Universitätsklinikum Würzburg (DE)
- University Hospital Regensburg (DE)
- Essen University Hospital (DE)
- University Hospital Heidelberg (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Brinker, Titus J.
- ORCID
- Maron, Roman C.
- Weichenthal, Michael
- Hekler, Achim
- Hauschild, Axel
- Schilling, Bastian
- Fröhling, Stefan
- Gesierich, Anja
- Kähler, Katharina C.
- Wehkamp, Ulrike
- Brinker, Titus J.
- Schmitt, Laurenz
- Peitsch, Wiebke K.
- Becker, Jürgen C.
- Lodde, Georg
- Sondermann, Wiebke
- Ugurel, Selma
- Salzmann, Martin
- Schäkel, Knut
- Winkler, Julia
- Bohne, Ann-Sophie
- Brown, Victoria
- Dietrich, Cecilia
- Egberts, Friederike
- Jost, Marion
- Felcht, Moritz
- Kurzen, Hjalmar
- Leibing, Thomas
- Müller, Verena
- Heppt, Markus
- Krammer, Sebastian
- Niesert, Anne-Charlotte
- Oppel, Eva
- Sattler, Elke
- Senner, Sonja
- Wallmichrath, Jens
- Glutsch, Valerie
- Kerstan, Andreas
- Presser, Dagmar
- Schummer, Patrick
- Drexler, Konstantin
- Thiem, Alexander
- Venue
- European Journal of Cancer
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-09
- Volume
- 119
- Pages
- 57-65
- ISSN
- 0959-8049 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2968318837
- Cited by
- 219
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 7
- FWCI
- 11.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- European Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Bundesministerium für Gesundheit
- 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
- dermoscopic image classification, skin cancer screening, melanoma, nevi, convolutional neural networks, multi-class classification, basal cell carcinoma, automated diagnosis
- MeSH terms
- Dermatologists, Algorithms, Biopsy, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Hospitals, University, Humans, Male, Melanoma, Nevus, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Skin Neoplasms, Neural Networks, Computer, 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