Cited by 14,362Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementAI in cancer detectionAdvanced Neural Network Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks

Open access

Abstract

Skin cancer, the most common human malignancy, is primarily diagnosed visually, beginning with an initial clinical screening and followed potentially by dermoscopic analysis, a biopsy and histopathological examination. Automated classification of skin lesions using images is a challenging task owing to the fine-grained variability in the appearance of skin lesions. Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) show potential for general and highly variable tasks across many fine-grained object categories. Here we demonstrate classification of skin lesions using a single CNN, trained end-to-end from images directly, using only pixels and disease labels as inputs. We train a CNN using a dataset of 129,450 clinical images—two orders of magnitude larger than previous datasets—consisting of 2,032 different diseases. We test its performance against 21 board-certified dermatologists on biopsy-proven clinical images with two critical binary classification use cases: keratinocyte carcinomas versus benign seborrheic keratoses; and malignant melanomas versus benign nevi. The first case represents the identification of the most common cancers, the second represents the identification of the deadliest skin cancer. The CNN achieves performance on par with all tested experts across both tasks, demonstrating an artificial intelligence capable of classifying skin cancer with a level of competence comparable to dermatologists. Outfitted with deep neural networks, mobile devices can potentially extend the reach of dermatologists outside of the clinic. It is projected that 6.3 billion smartphone subscriptions will exist by the year 2021 (ref. 13) and can therefore potentially provide low-cost universal access to vital diagnostic care.

Overview

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 · 10.1038/nature21056

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 26 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. LeCun, Y. & Bengio, Y. In The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks (ed. Arbib, M. A. ) 3361.10 (MIT Press, 1995)
  2. Gutman, D. et al. Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection. International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), (International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC), 2016)
  3. Menzies, S. W. et al. In Skin Cancer and UV Radiation (eds Altmeyer, P., Hoffmann, K. & Stücker, M. ) 1064–1070 (Springer, 1997)
  4. Ballerini, L. et al. In Color Medical Image Analysis. (eds, Celebi, M. E. & Schaefer, G. ) 63–86 (Springer, 2013)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–800 of 1,229

Metadata

Authors
Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R. A., Ko, J., Swetter, S. M., Blau, H. M., & Thrun, S.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • VA Palo Alto Health Care System (US)
  • Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
  • Esteva, Andre
  • Kuprel, Brett
  • Novoa, Roberto A.
  • Thrun, Sebastian
Venue
Nature
Published
2017-01-25
Volume
542
Issue
7639
Pages
115-118
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2581082771
Cited by
14,362
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1681 · 2025: 2079 · 2024: 1706 · 2023: 1544 · 2022: 1495 · 2021: 1739 · 2020: 1647 · 2019: 1324 · 2018: 862 · 2017: 266
FWCI
490.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2017-06-29)
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001085)
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG009521, R21AG044815, R01AG020961)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS089533)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (R01AR063963)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
skin cancer classification, skin lesion images, deep convolutional neural networks, melanoma, non-melanoma skin cancer, seborrheic keratosis, benign nevi, mobile phone imaging, clinical screening, fine-grained image classification
MeSH terms
Dermatologists, Automation, Humans, Melanoma, Nevus, Photography, Skin Neoplasms, Reproducibility of Results, Keratinocytes, Neural Networks, Computer, Keratosis, Seborrheic, Cell Phone, 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