CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementEthics and Social Impacts of AIImbalanced Data Classification Techniques

Skin Cancer Machine Learning Model Tone Bias

Open access
Pope, James, Hassanuzzaman, Md, Chapman, William, Day, Huw, Sherpa, Mingmar, Emara, Omar, Adhikari, Nirmala, Joshi, Ayush·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2410.06385arXiv 2410.06385
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Many open-source skin cancer image datasets are the result of clinical trials conducted in countries with lighter skin tones. Due to this tone imbalance, machine learning models derived from these datasets can perform well at detecting skin cancer for lighter skin tones. Any tone bias in these models could introduce fairness concerns and reduce public trust in the artificial intelligence health field. Methods: We examine a subset of images from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC) archive that provide tone information. The subset has a significant tone imbalance. These imbalances could explain a model's tone bias. To address this, we train models using the imbalanced dataset and a balanced dataset to compare against. The datasets are used to train a deep convolutional neural network model to classify the images as malignant or benign. We then evaluate the models' disparate impact, based on selection rate, relative to dark or light skin tone. Results: Using the imbalanced dataset, we found that the model is significantly better at detecting malignant images in lighter tone resulting in a disparate impact of 0.577. Using the balanced dataset, we found that the model is also significantly better at detecting malignant images in lighter versus darker tones with a disparate impact of 0.684. Using the imbalanced or balanced dataset to train the model still results in a disparate impact well below the standard threshold of 0.80 which suggests the model is biased with respect to skin tone. Conclusion: The results show that typical skin cancer machine learning models can be tone biased. These results provide evidence that diagnosis or tone imbalance is not the cause of the bias. Other techniques will be necessary to identify and address the bias in these models, an area of future investigation.

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.2410.06385

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.

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?

  • A majority of skin tone-related algorithmic models work best when applied to diagnostic data that includes patients with lighter complexions, while generating inferior outcomes for patients with darker complexions.

    “A majority of skin tone-related algorithmic models work best when applied to diagnostic data that includes patients with lighter complexions, while generating inferior outcomes for patients with darker complexions.”

    From Photoplethysmography in Diverse Skin Tones: Evaluating Bias in Smartwatch Health Monitoring (2025) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Abstract reports that models trained on both the imbalanced and balanced datasets detected malignant images significantly better for lighter than darker skin tones. It does not establish that a majority of skin tone-related models have this pattern; the study evaluates models trained on one subset of skin images. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The problem arises primarily from model biases as well as from issues with feature selection and calibration because better settings for lighter skin types create unequal outcomes for people with darker skin.

    “The problem arises primarily from model biases as well as from issues with feature selection and calibration because better settings for lighter skin types create unequal outcomes for people with darker skin [29].”

    From Photoplethysmography in Diverse Skin Tones: Evaluating Bias in Smartwatch Health Monitoring (2025) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Abstract (page unavailable) reports that the models detected malignant lesions better in lighter than darker skin tones, and the Introduction (page unavailable) says the results provide evidence that the models learn tone-related features. The paper does not establish that feature selection or calibration issues, or settings optimized for lighter skin, cause the unequal outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Bill Cassidy, Connah Kendrick, Andrzej Brodzicki, Joanna Jaworek-Korjakowska, and Moi Hoon Yap. Analysis of the isic image datasets: Usage, benchmarks and recommendations. Medical Image Analysis, 75:102305, 2022. ISSN 1361-8415. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2021.102305. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S1361841521003509. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Ayush Jain, David Way, Vishakha Gupta, Yi Gao, Guilherme de Oliveira Marinho, Jay Hartford, Rory Sayres, Kimberly Kanada, Clara Eng, Kunal Nagpal, Karen B. DeSalvo, Greg S. Corrado, Lily Peng, Dale R. Webster, R. Carter Dunn, David Coz, Susan J. Huang, Yun Liu, Peggy Bui, and Yuan Liu. Development and Assessment of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Tool for Skin Condition Diagnosis by Primary Care Physicians and Nurse Practitioners in Teledermatology Practices. JAMA Network Open, 4(4):e217249-e217249, 04 2021. ISSN 2574-3805. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.7249. URL https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.7249. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Yuan Liu, Ayush Jain, Clara Eng, David H. Way, Kang Lee, Peggy Bui, Kimberly Kanada, Guilherme de Oliveira Mar- inho, Jessica Gallegos, Sara Gabriele, Vishakha Gupta, Nalini Singh, Vivek Natarajan, Rainer Hofmann-Wellenhof, Greg S. Corrado, Lily H. Peng, Dale R. Webster, Dennis Ai, Susan J. Huang, Yun Liu, R. Carter Dunn, and David Coz. A deep learning system for differential diagnosis of skin diseases. Nature Medicine, 26(6):900-908, Jun 2020. ISSN 1546-170X. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0842-3. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0842-3. · DOI · Paper page
  4. David Wen, Saad M. Khan, Antonio Ji Xu, Hussein Ibrahim, Luke Smith, Jose Caballero, Luis Zepeda, Carlos de Blas Perez, Alastair K. Denniston, Xiaoxuan Liu, and Rubeta N. Matin. Characteristics of publicly available skin cancer image datasets: a systematic review. The Lancet Digital Health, 4(1):e64-e74, Jan 2022. ISSN 2589-7500. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00252-1. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00252-1. · DOI · Paper page
  5. B. Lee Green, Anastasia Murphy, and Edmondo Robinson. Accelerating health disparities research with artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Digital Health, 6, 2024. ISSN 2673-253X. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2024.1330160. URL https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/digital-health/articles/10.3389/fdgth.2024.1330160. · DOI
  6. Solon Barocas, Moritz Hardt, and Arvind Narayanan. Fairness and Machine Learning: Limitations and Opportunities. MIT Press, 2023.
  7. Vence L Bonham, Shawneequa L Callier, and Royal, Charmaine D. Will precision medicine move us beyond race? N Engl J Med, 374(21):2003-2005, May 2016.
  8. Malone Mukwende, Peter Tamony, and Margot Turner. Mind the Gap: A handbook of clinical signs in Black and Brown skin. St Georges University of London, 8 2020. doi: 10.24376/rd.sgul.12769988.v1. · DOI
  9. Catarina Barata, Veronica Rotemberg, Noel C F Codella, Philipp Tschandl, Christoph Rinner, Bengu Nisa Akay, Zoe Apalla, Giuseppe Argenziano, Allan Halpern, Aimilios Lallas, Caterina Longo, Josep Malvehy, Susana Puig, Cliff Rosendahl, H Peter Soyer, Iris Zalaudek, and Harald Kittler. A reinforcement learning model for AI-based decision support in skin cancer. Nat Med, 29(8):1941-1946, July 2023.
  10. Tanish Jain. Evaluating machine learning-based skin cancer diagnosis, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2409. 03794.
  11. Vishal Gupta and Vinod Kumar Sharma. Skin typing: Fitzpatrick grading and others. Clinics in Dermatology, 37 (5):430-436, 2019. ISSN 0738-081X. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2019.07.010. URL https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738081X1930121X. The Color of Skin. · DOI
  12. Noel C. F. Codella, David Gutman, M. Emre Celebi, Brian Helba, Michael A. Marchetti, Stephen W. Dusza, Aadi Kalloo, Konstantinos Liopyris, Nabin Mishra, Harald Kittler, and Allan Halpern. 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), 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05006. · arXiv
  13. Nirmala Adhikari, Dmitry Martyshkin, Vladimir Fedorov, Deblina Das, Veena Antony, and Sergey Mirov. Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy detection of heavy metal contamination in soil samples from north birmingham, alabama. Applied Sciences, 14(17), 2024. ISSN 2076-3417. doi: 10.3390/app14177868. URL https://www.mdpi.com/ 2076-3417/14/17/7868. · DOI
  14. A Chardon, I Cretois, and C Hourseau. Skin colour typology and suntanning pathways. Int J Cosmet Sci, 13(4): 191-208, August 1991.
  15. Michael Feldman, Sorelle A. Friedler, John Moeller, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. Certifying and removing disparate impact. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '15, page 259-268, New York, NY, USA, 2015. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450336642. doi: 10.1145/2783258.2783311. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/2783258. 2783311. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 770-778, 2016. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2016. · DOI
  17. Y. Lecun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278-2324, 1998. doi: 10.1109/5.726791. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Commun. ACM, 60(6):84-90, May 2017. ISSN 0001-0782. doi: 10.1145/3065386. URL https: //doi.org/10.1145/3065386. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Dropout: A simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(56):1929-1958, 2014. URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v15/srivastava14a.html.
  20. Takuya Akiba, Shotaro Sano, Toshihiko Yanase, Takeru Ohta, and Masanori Koyama. Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD '19, page 2623-2631, New York, NY, USA, 2019. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450362016. doi: 10.1145/3292500.3330701. URL https://doi.org/10. 1145/3292500.3330701. · DOI
  21. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Köpf, Edward Yang, Zach DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.01703. · arXiv
  22. Simon McIntosh-Smith, Sadaf R Alam, and Christopher Woods. Isambard-AI: a leadership class supercomputer optimised specifically for Artificial Intelligence, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.11199. · arXiv
  23. Philipp Tschandl, Cliff Rosendahl, and Harald Kittler. The HAM10000 dataset, a large collection of multi-source dermatoscopic images of common pigmented skin lesions. Scientific Data, 5(1):180161, August 2018.
  24. Titus Josef Brinker, Achim Hekler, Jochen Sven Utikal, Niels Grabe, Dirk Schadendorf, Joachim Klode, Carola Berking, Theresa Steeb, Alexander H Enk, and Christof von Kalle. Skin cancer classification using convolutional neural networks: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res, 20(10):e11936, October 2018.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pope, J., Hassanuzzaman, M., Chapman, W., Day, H., Sherpa, M., Emara, O., Adhikari, N., & Joshi, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2410.06385
arXiv
2410.06385
OpenAlex
W4403344844
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
University of Bristol
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Keywords
skin cancer detection, skin tone bias, algorithmic fairness, ISIC archive, indirect discrimination, deep convolutional neural networks

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