Cited by 34Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementAI in cancer detectionArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Dermatopathology of Malignant Melanoma in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: A Single Institutional Experience

Open access
Cazzato, Gerardo, Massaro, Alessandro, Colagrande, Anna, Lettini, Teresa, Cicco, Sebastiano, Parente, Paola, Nacchiero, Eleonora, Lospalluti, Lucia +6 more·2022·Diagnostics

Abstract

The application of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in medicine could support diagnostic and prognostic analyses and decision making. In the field of dermatopathology, there have been various papers that have trained algorithms for the recognition of different types of skin lesions, such as basal cell carcinoma (BCC), seborrheic keratosis (SK) and dermal nevus. Furthermore, the difficulty in diagnosing particular melanocytic lesions, such as Spitz nevi and melanoma, considering the grade of interobserver variability among dermatopathologists, has led to an objective difficulty in training machine learning (ML) algorithms to a totally reliable, reportable and repeatable level. In this work we tried to train a fast random forest (FRF) algorithm, typically used for the classification of clusters of pixels in images, to highlight anomalous areas classified as melanoma “defects” following the Allen–Spitz criteria. The adopted image vision diagnostic protocol was structured in the following steps: image acquisition by selecting the best zoom level of the microscope; preliminary selection of an image with a good resolution; preliminary identification of macro-areas of defect in each preselected image; identification of a class of a defect in the selected macro-area; training of the supervised machine learning FRF algorithm by selecting the micro-defect in the macro-area; execution of the FRF algorithm to find an image vision performance indicator; and analysis of the output images by enhancing lesion defects. The precision achieved by the FRF algorithm proved to be appropriate with a discordance of 17% with respect to the dermatopathologist, allowing this type of supervised algorithm to be nominated as a help to the dermatopathologist in the challenging diagnosis of malignant melanoma.

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 · 10.3390/diagnostics12081972

Cites

22 of 22 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?

  • The supervised Fast Random Forest (FRF) algorithm is integrated into clinical protocols and can estimate an alerting threshold to discriminate benign from malignant lesions in the analysis of histological images.

    “the supervised Fast Random Forest (FRF) algorithm is integrated into clinical protocols and can estimate an alerting threshold [39,40] to discriminate benign from malignant lesions in the analysis of histological images.”

    From Artificial Intelligence in the Histopathological Assessment of Non-Neoplastic Skin Disorders: A Narrative Review with Future Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [40]

    Materials and Methods §2.2 describes a supervised FRF algorithm that analyzes histological images and uses threshold filtering to highlight anomalous areas. But that threshold adjusts image intensity; the paper does not establish an alerting cutoff that discriminates benign from malignant lesions. The Discussion §4 says the findings allow the authors to *consider* including FRF in the normal diagnostic workflow, not that it is already integrated into clinical protocols. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [5]Massaro A. Electronic in Advanced Research Industry: From Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0 Advances Wiley Hoboken, NJ, USA IEEE New York, NY, USA 2021 9781119716877

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cazzato, G., Massaro, A., Colagrande, A., Lettini, T., Cicco, S., Parente, P., Nacchiero, E., Lospalluti, L., Cascardi, E., Giudice, G., Ingravallo, G., Resta, L., Maiorano, E., & Vacca, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Bari Aldo Moro (IT)
  • LUM Jean Monnet University (IT)
  • Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza (IT)
  • Candiolo Cancer Institute (IT)
Corresponding author
Cazzato, Gerardo
Venue
Diagnostics
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-08-15
Volume
12
Issue
8
Pages
1972
ISSN
2075-4418 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4291743884
Cited by
34
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 1
FWCI
3.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diagnostics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Bari Aldo Moro) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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
melanoma, dermatopathology, artificial intelligence, computer-aided diagnosis, interobserver variability

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