PreprintCited by 3Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementAI in cancer detectionArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Revamping AI models in dermatology: overcoming critical challenges for enhanced skin lesion diagnosis

Open access
Mehta, Deval, Betz-Stablein, Brigid, Nguyen, Toan D, Gal, Yaniv, Bowling, Adrian, Haskett, Martin, Sashindranath, Maithili, Bonnington, Paul +3 more·2023·arXiv

Abstract

The surge in developing deep learning models for diagnosing skin lesions through image analysis is notable, yet their clinical black faces challenges. Current dermatology AI models have limitations: limited number of possible diagnostic outputs, lack of real-world testing on uncommon skin lesions, inability to detect out-of-distribution images, and over-reliance on dermoscopic images. To address these, we present an All-In-One \textbf{H}ierarchical-\textbf{O}ut of Distribution-\textbf{C}linical Triage (HOT) model. For a clinical image, our model generates three outputs: a hierarchical prediction, an alert for out-of-distribution images, and a recommendation for dermoscopy if clinical image alone is insufficient for diagnosis. When the recommendation is pursued, it integrates both clinical and dermoscopic images to deliver final diagnosis. Extensive experiments on a representative cutaneous lesion dataset demonstrate the effectiveness and synergy of each component within our framework. Our versatile model provides valuable decision support for lesion diagnosis and sets a promising precedent for medical AI applications.

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.2311.01009

Cites

48 of 48 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 HOT model could handle out-of-distribution data and obtained an AUROC of 81.80% for OOD(17 cL) and 71.79% for OOD.

    “The model also could handle OOD data and obtain the AUROC of 81.80% for OOD(17 cL) and 71.79% for OOD.”

    From Revolutionizing dermatopathology using AI in skin diagnostics: scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [35]

    Table 3 (Section 3.2, p. 10) reports AUROC values of 81.804% for OOD(17cl) using clinical images and 71.79% for OOD(Unk) using combined clinical and dermoscopic images. The claim gives the correct rounded figures, but leaves out that they refer to different image modalities and that 71.79% is specifically for OOD(Unk), not OOD data generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Mehta et al.'s HOT model increased F1 scores from 0.574 to 0.607 using hierarchical predictions, and F1 rose to 0.617 when clinical and dermoscopic image datasets were combined.

    “According to this model, F1 scores increased from 0.574 to 0.607 by using hierarchical predictions in the model. The F1-score was raised to 0.617 when the clinical and the dermoscopic image datasets were combined”

    From Revolutionizing dermatopathology using AI in skin diagnostics: scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [35]

    Table 2 (section 3.1, p. 8) reports F1 scores of 0.574 for singular prediction using dermoscopic images and 0.607 for hierarchical prediction using combined clinical and dermoscopic images. These figures come from different image modalities, so the table does not isolate an increase caused by hierarchical prediction. It reports 0.607—not 0.617—for the combined-image hierarchical result; a search for 0.617 found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Mehta et al. proposed a model which increased F1 scores from 0.574 with hierarchical predictions to 0.617 and further to 0.619 when clinical and dermoscopic data were used.

    “Mehta et al. (35) also proposed a model which increased the F1 scores from 0.574 with hierarchical predictions to 0.617 and further to 0.619 when clinical and dermoscopic data were used.”

    From Revolutionizing dermatopathology using AI in skin diagnostics: scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [35]

    Table 2 (section 3.1, p. 8) reports an F1 score of 0.574 for hierarchical predictions using clinical images. The table in section 3.2 (p. 11) reports 0.617 for a different configuration—hierarchical prediction plus mixup and prototype learning using both clinical and dermoscopic images. Our copy does not substantiate the further increase to 0.619. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This model was able to handle out-of-distribution (OOD) data, with AUROC 81.80% for OOD (17 cL) and 71.79% for OOD (Unk).

    “This model was able to handle out-of-distribution (OOD) data, with an AUROC of 81.80% for OOD (17 cL) and 71.79% for OOD (Unk).”

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: 6

  1. [13][13] Codella, N.C., Gutman, D., Celebi, M.E., Helba, B., Marchetti, M.A., Dusza, S.W., Kalloo, A., Liopyris, K., Mishra, N., Kittler, H., et al. : Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection: A challenge at the 2017 international symposium on biomedical imaging (isbi), hosted by the international skin imaging collaboration (isic). In: 2018 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2018), pp. 168-172 (2018). IEEE -
  2. [15][15] Okuboyejo, D.A., Olugbara, O.O., Odunaike, S.A.: Automating skin disease diagnosis using image classification. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 2, pp. 850-854 (2013) -
  3. [21][21] Tschandl, P., Rosendahl, C., Kittler, H.: The ham10000 dataset, a large collection of multi-source dermatoscopic images of common pigmented skin lesions. Scientific data 5 (1), 1-9 (2018) -
  4. [23][23] Daneshjou, R., Vodrahalli, K., Novoa, R.A., Jenkins, M., Liang, W., - Rotemberg, V., Ko, J., Swetter, S.M., Bailey, E.E., Gevaert, O., et al. : Disparities in dermatology ai performance on a diverse, curated clinical image set. Science advances 8 (31), 6147 (2022) -
  5. [32][32] Brinker, T.J., Hekler, A., Utikal, J.S., Grabe, N., Schadendorf, D., Klode, - J., Berking, C., Steeb, T., Enk, A.H., Von Kalle, C.: Skin cancer classification using convolutional neural networks: systematic review. Journal of medical Internet research 20 (10), 11936 (2018) -
  6. [52][52] Shimodaira, H.: Improving predictive inference under covariate shift by weighting the log-likelihood function. Journal of statistical planning and inference 90 (2), 227-244 (2000)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mehta, D., Betz-Stablein, B., Nguyen, T. D., Gal, Y., Bowling, A., Haskett, M., Sashindranath, M., Bonnington, P., Mar, V., Soyer, H. P., & Ge, Z.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4388329046
Cited by
3
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
skin lesion diagnosis, out-of-distribution detection, dermoscopy, hierarchical prediction, multimodal image fusion, clinical decision support, rare skin lesion

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