Artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms for early detection of skin cancer in community and primary care settings: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Skin cancers occur commonly worldwide. The prognosis and disease burden are highly dependent on the cancer type and disease stage at diagnosis. We systematically reviewed studies on artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) algorithms that aim to facilitate the early diagnosis of skin cancers, focusing on their application in primary and community care settings. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science (from Jan 1, 2000, to Aug 9, 2021) for all studies providing evidence on applying AI/ML algorithms to the early diagnosis of skin cancer, including all study designs and languages. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of the algorithms for skin cancers. The secondary outcomes included an overview of AI/ML methods, evaluation approaches, cost-effectiveness, and acceptability to patients and clinicians. We identified 14 224 studies. Only two studies used data from clinical settings with a low prevalence of skin cancers. We reported data from all 272 studies that could be relevant in primary care. The primary outcomes showed reasonable mean diagnostic accuracy for melanoma (89·5% [range 59·7-100%]), squamous cell carcinoma (85·3% [71·0-97·8%]), and basal cell carcinoma (87·6% [70·0-99·7%]). The secondary outcomes showed a heterogeneity of AI/ML methods and study designs, with high amounts of incomplete reporting (eg, patient demographics and methods of data collection). Few studies used data on populations with a low prevalence of skin cancers to t…
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 [9]
No systematic review comprehensively addresses the challenges, opportunities, and requirements associated with AI implementation within PHC using a structural and standard framework.
“To the best of our knowledge, no systematic review comprehensively addresses the challenges, opportunities, and requirements associated with AI implementation within PHC using a structural and standard framework.”
From Opportunities, challenges, and requirements for Artificial Intelligence (AI) implementation in Primary Health Care (PHC): a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [45]
Recent reviews have explored the challenges and benefits of AI implementation in PHC settings but lack a comprehensive framework for evaluating AI integration across core functions of PHC.
“Recent reviews, such as those by [27, 43–45], have explored the challenges and benefits of AI implementation in PHC settings. While these studies emphasize the transformative potential of AI and highlight the importance of addressing its challenges [27, 43–45], they lack a comprehensive framework for evaluating AI integration across core functions of PHC.”
From Opportunities, challenges, and requirements for Artificial Intelligence (AI) implementation in Primary Health Care (PHC): a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [45]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 52 · Cited by 272
- Authors
- Jones, O. T., Matin, R. N., van der Schaar, M., Prathivadi Bhayankaram, K., Ranmuthu, C. K. I., Islam, M. S., Behiyat, D., Boscott, R., Calanzani, N., Emery, J., Williams, H. C., & Walter, F. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- University of Nottingham (GB)
- Venue
- The Lancet Digital Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-06
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e466-e476
- ISSN
- 2589-7500 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4281783336
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 44 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 92 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 4
- FWCI
- 6.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Lancet Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1195302)
- National Institute for Health Research (PR-PRU-1217\u201321601)
- Baylor College of Medicine
- Cancer Research UK (C8640/A23385)
- 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 cancer, artificial intelligence, machine learning, early diagnosis, melanoma, squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, primary care, community-based care, diagnostic accuracy, low-prevalence populations, algorithm evaluation, cost-effectiveness
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Primary Health Care, Skin Neoplasms, Early Detection of Cancer
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