Cited by 248Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementAI in cancer detectionArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Augmented intelligence dermatology: deep neural networks empower medical professionals in diagnosing skin cancer and predicting treatment options for 134 skin disorders.

Open access
Han, Seung Seog, Park, Ilwoo, Eun Chang, Sung, Lim, Woohyung, Kim, Myoung Shin, Park, Gyeong Hun, Chae, Je Byeong, Huh, Chang Hun +1 more·2020·Journal of Investigative Dermatology

Abstract

Although deep learning algorithms have demonstrated expert-level performance, previous efforts were mostly binary classifications of limited disorders. We trained an algorithm with 220,680 images of 174 disorders and validated it using Edinburgh (1,300 images; 10 disorders) and SNU datasets (2,201 images; 134 disorders). The algorithm could accurately predict malignancy, suggest primary treatment options, render multi-class classification among 134 disorders, and improve the performance of medical professionals. The area under the curves for malignancy detection were 0.928 ± 0.002 (Edinburgh) and 0.937 ± 0.004 (SNU). The area under the curves of primary treatment suggestion (SNU) were 0.828 ± 0.012, 0.885 ± 0.006, 0.885 ± 0.006, and 0.918 ± 0.006 for steroids, antibiotics, antivirals, and antifungals, respectively. For multi-class classification, the mean top-1 and top-5 accuracies were 56.7 ± 1.6% and 92.0 ± 1.1% (Edinburgh) and 44.8 ± 1.2% and 78.1 ± 0.3% (SNU), respectively. With the assistance of our algorithm, the sensitivity and specificity of 47 clinicians (21 dermatologists and 26 dermatology residents) for malignancy prediction (SNU; 240 images) were improved by 12.1% (P < 0.0001) and 1.1% (P < 0.0001), respectively. The malignancy prediction sensitivity of 23 non-medical professionals was significantly increased by 83.8% (P < 0.0001). The top-1 and top-3 accuracies of four doctors in the multi-class classification of 134 diseases (SNU; 2,201 images) were increased by 7.0% (P = 0.045) and 10.1% (P = 0.0020), respectively. The results suggest that our algorithm may serve as augmented intelligence that can empower medical professionals in diagnostic dermatology.

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.jid.2020.01.019

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Dodge S, Karam L. A study and comparison of human and deep learning recognition performance under visual distortions. 2017 26th international conference on computer communication and networks (ICCCN). Pisct- away, NJ: IEEE; 2017. p. 1e7.
  2. Kawahara J, Daneshvar S, Argenziano G, Hamarneh G. 7-Point Checklist and Skin Lesion Classification using multi-task multi-modal neural nets. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2019;23:538e46.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Han, S. S., Park, I., Eun Chang, S., Lim, W., Kim, M. S., Park, G. H., Chae, J. B., Huh, C. H., & Na, J.-I.
Affiliations
  • Chonnam National University (KR)
  • LG (South Korea) (KR)
  • Inje University (KR)
  • Hallym University (KR)
  • Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (KR)
Corresponding author
Na, Jung-Im
Venue
Journal of Investigative Dermatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-09
Volume
140
Issue
9
Pages
1753-1761
ISSN
0022-202X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3014403957
Cited by
248
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 11
FWCI
12.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Investigative Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Research Foundation of Korea (2017R1C1B5018396)
  • Chonnam National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute (CRI18019-1 and CRI18094-2)
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
ology, skin cancer diagnosis, skin diseases, deep neural network, augmented intelligence, malignancy prediction, non-medical professionals, dermatology education, dermatology residents
MeSH terms
Dermatologists, Deep Learning, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Antifungal Agents, Antiviral Agents, Clinical Competence, Dermatology, Drug Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Feasibility Studies, Female, Glucocorticoids, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Internship and Residency, Male, Middle Aged, Photography, ROC Curve, Skin, Skin Diseases, Skin Neoplasms, Dermoscopy, Young Adult, Datasets as Topic

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