Classification of melanocytic lesions in selected and whole-slide images via convolutional neural networks
Open accessAbstract
Whole-slide images (WSIs) are a rich new source of biomedical imaging data. The use of automated systems to classify and segment WSIs has recently come to forefront of the pathology research community. While digital slides have obvious educational and clinical uses, their most exciting potential lies in the application of quantitative computational tools to automate search tasks, assist in classic diagnostic classification tasks, and improve prognosis and theranostics. An essential step in enabling these advancements is to apply advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence from other fields to previously inaccessible pathology datasets, thereby enabling the application of new technologies to solve persistent diagnostic challenges in pathology. Here, we applied convolutional neural networks to differentiate between two forms of melanocytic lesions (Spitz and conventional). Classification accuracy at the patch level was 99.0%-2% when applied to WSI. Importantly, when the model was trained without careful image curation by a pathologist, the training took significantly longer and had lower overall performance. These results highlight the utility of augmented human intelligence in digital pathology applications, and the critical role pathologists will play in the evolution of computational pathology algorithms.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
This indicates challenges associated with large and complex datasets, suggesting AI models should perform better with uncurated datasets.
“This indicates the challenges associated with large and complex datasets, suggesting that AI models should be able to perform better with uncurated datasets.”
From Revolutionizing dermatopathology using AI in skin diagnostics: scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
The Results report that noncurated patches reached only 52.3% validation accuracy, versus 99.0% for the curated model. The Conclusions say manual curation improved accuracy and reduced training time from 800 to 50 hours—the opposite of the claim that models should perform better with uncurated datasets. (LLM, conf=0.93)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHart et al. evaluated a CNN to categorize melanocytic lesions; CNNs trained on carefully selected samples achieved 99% accuracy, but accuracy reduced to 92% on whole-slide images, with sensitivity 85% and specificity 99%.
“Hart et al. (22) evaluated CNN to categorize melanocytic lesions. The present study noted that when the CNNs were trained on carefully selected samples, they were able to achieve 99% in terms of accuracy rates; however, the accuracy rate reduced to 92% when the test was conducted on WSIs, with a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 99%.”
From Revolutionizing dermatopathology using AI in skin diagnostics: scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
Collectively, the Laohawetwanit and Hart studies demonstrate a continuous pattern: models exhibit robust performance under optimum or curated settings but decline under real-world variability or whole-slide complexity.
“Collectively, these two studies demonstrate a continuous pattern in the literature: models exhibit robust performance under optimum or curated settings but experience significant declines when subjected to real-world variability or whole-slide complexity.”
From Revolutionizing dermatopathology using AI in skin diagnostics: scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
The performance decline identified by Olsen et al. confirms the generalizability gap noted in Hart et al., suggesting this constraint is systemic among CNN-based models rather than an isolated occurrence.
“The performance decline identified by, Olsen et al. (28) confirms the generalizability gap noted in Hart et al. (22) suggesting that this constraint is systemic among CNN-based models rather than an isolated occurrence.”
From Revolutionizing dermatopathology using AI in skin diagnostics: scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
Hart et al. demonstrated CNNs achieved accuracy 99% on selected datasets to differentiate melanocytic lesions, but this fell to 92% when using WSIs, with sensitivity 85% and specificity 99%.
“Similarly, Hart et al. (22) demonstrated that CNNs achieved an accuracy of 99% on the selected datasets to differentiate between the melanocytic lesions, but this fell to 92% when using WSIs, with a sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 99%.”
From Revolutionizing dermatopathology using AI in skin diagnostics: scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
The scoping review captures how model performance reduces when datasets used are non-curated or in real-world scenarios, as seen in Hart et al. and Olsen et al.
“The scoping review also captures how model performance reduces when the datasets used are non-curated or in real-world scenarios, as seen in the works of Hart et al. (22) and Olsen et al. (28).”
From Revolutionizing dermatopathology using AI in skin diagnostics: scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 4 · Cited by 69
- Authors
- Hart, S. N., Flotte, W., Norgan, A. F., Shah, K. K., Buchan, Z. R., Mounajjed, T., & Flotte, T. J.
- Affiliations
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hart, Steven N.
- Venue
- Journal of Pathology Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5
- ISSN
- 2153-3539 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6415523
- OpenAlex
- W2915860004
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 4.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Pathology Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
- Keywords
- melanocytic lesions, whole slide images, Spitz nevus, melanoma, convolutional neural networks, digital pathology, image curation, automatic classification, patch-based classification, human-in-the-loop
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