CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 24AI in cancer detectionCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementDigital Imaging for Blood Diseases

Interpretable classification from skin Cancer histology slides using deep learning: A retrospective multicenter study

Open access
Xie, Peizhen, Zuo, Ke, Zhang, Yu, Li, Fangfang, Yin, Mingzhu, Lu, Kai·2019·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1904.06156arXiv 1904.06156
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

For diagnosing melanoma, hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained tissue slides remains the gold standard. These images contain quantitative information in different magnifications. In the present study, we investigated whether deep convolutional neural networks can extract structural features of complex tissues directly from these massive size images in a patched way. In order to face the challenge arise from morphological diversity in histopathological slides, we built a multicenter database of 2241 digital whole-slide images from 1321 patients from 2008 to 2018. We trained both ResNet50 and Vgg19 using over 9.95 million patches by transferring learning, and test performance with two kinds of critical classifications: malignant melanomas versus benign nevi in separate and mixed magnification; and distinguish among nevi in maximum magnification. The CNNs achieves superior performance across both tasks, demonstrating an AI capable of classifying skin cancer in the analysis from histopathological images. For making the classifications reasonable, the visualization of CNN representations is furthermore used to identify cells between melanoma and nevi. Regions of interest (ROI) are also located which are significantly helpful, giving pathologists more support of correctly diagnosis.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1904.06156

Cites

14 of 14 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 multicentric study created heat maps to explain important image regions, increasing physician confidence in AI models for clinical decisions.

    “Additionally, the work also created heat maps to explain the important regions in the images thus increasing the confidence of physicians in the AI models for clinical decisions.”

    From Revolutionizing dermatopathology using AI in skin diagnostics: scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [30]

    Section 4.3 (p. 5) says the study generated heat maps showing which image regions mattered to the CNN, and the Introduction (p. 2) says locating these regions could help doctors with diagnosis. The paper does not report that the heat maps increased physicians’ confidence in AI models for clinical decisions. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Multicenter validations demonstrate increased clinician confidence and a reduction in false positives.

    “Multicenter validations demonstrate increased clinician confidence and a reduction in false positives (30, 37, 38).”

    From Revolutionizing dermatopathology using AI in skin diagnostics: scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Dataset section (p. 2) describes a multicenter image collection, and the mixed-magnification results (p. 3) report higher specificity for ResNet50 than Vgg19, consistent with fewer model false positives in that comparison. The paper does not report measuring clinician confidence or demonstrating a reduction in clinicians’ false positives. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • A multicentric study using a ResNet50-based model produced an F1 score of 0.93, sensitivity of 0.92, specificity of 0.97, and AUC of 0.99 for melanoma detection.

    “They used a ResNet50-based model, the model produced F1 score of 0.93, sensitivity of 0.92; specificity of 0.97; and the AUC was 0.99 for the detection of melanoma.”

    From Revolutionizing dermatopathology using AI in skin diagnostics: scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [30]

  • Xie et al. conducted multicenter studies using ResNet50 and obtained F1 0.93, sensitivity 0.92, specificity 0.97, and AUC 0.99 for melanoma identification.

    “Extending further from this, Xie et al. (30) conducted multicenter studies using the ResNet50 model and obtained an F1 score of 0.93, a sensitivity of 0.92, a specificity of 0.97, and an AUC of 0.99 for the identification of melanoma.”

    From Revolutionizing dermatopathology using AI in skin diagnostics: scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [30]

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: 4

  1. [2][2]. World Cancer Report 2014. World Health Organization. 2014: Chapter 5.14. ISBN 9283204298. -
  2. [7][7]. Krizhevsky, Alex, Ilya Sutskever, et al. ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks, 2012. NIPS. -
  3. [10][10]. Zeiler, Matthew D., and Rob Fergus. Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networks, 2014. ECCV. -
  4. [19][19]. Simonyan, K., Zisserman, A., 2015. Very deep convolutional networks forlarge-scale image recognition, in: International Conference on LearningRepresentations (ICLR 2015). -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Xie, P., Zuo, K., Zhang, Y., Li, F., Yin, M., & Lu, K.
Affiliations
  • National University of Defense Technology (CN)
  • Xiangya Hospital Central South University (CN)
  • Yale University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1904.06156
arXiv
1904.06156
OpenAlex
W2938004941
Cited by
23
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Cancer Institute
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Imaging for Blood Diseases
Keywords
melanoma classification, whole slide images, H&E staining, convolutional neural networks, transfer learning, ResNet50, VGG19, patch-based feature extraction, explainable AI, digital pathology

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