Clinical Utility of a Digital Dermoscopy Image-Based Artificial Intelligence Device in the Diagnosis and Management of Skin Cancer by Dermatologists
Authors:
- Alexander M. WitkowskiAWAlexander M. Witkowski
- Joshua BurshteinJBJoshua Burshtein
- Michael ChristopherMCMichael Christopher
- Clay CockerellCCClay Cockerell
- Lilia CorreaLCLilia Correa
- David CotterDCDavid Cotter
- Darrell L. EllisDEDarrell L. Ellis
- Aaron S. FarbergAFAaron S. Farberg
- Jane M. Grant-KelsJGJane M. Grant-Kels
- Teri M. GreilingTGTeri M. Greiling
- James M. GrichnikJGJames M. Grichnik
- Sancy A. LeachmanSLSancy A. Leachman
Open Access
Abstract
Background: Patients with skin lesions suspicious for skin cancer or atypical melanocytic nevi of uncertain malignant potential often present to dermatologists, who may have variable dermoscopy triage clinical experience. Objective: To evaluate the clinical utility of a digital dermoscopy image-based artificial intelligence algorithm (DDI-AI device) on the diagnosis and management of skin cancers by dermatologists. Methods: Thirty-six United States board-certified dermatologists evaluated 50 clinical images and 50 digital dermoscopy images of the same skin lesions (25 malignant and 25 benign), first without and then with knowledge of the DDI-AI device output. Participants indicated whether they thought the lesion was likely benign (unremarkable) or malignant (suspicious). Results: The management sensitivity of dermatologists using the DDI-AI device was 91.1%, compared to 84.3% with DDI, and 70.0% with clinical images. The management specificity was 71.0%, compared to 68.4% and 64.9%, respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity of dermatologists using the DDI-AI device was 86.1%, compared to 78.8% with DDI, and 63.4% with clinical images. Diagnostic specificity using the DDI-AI device increased to 80.7%, compared to 75.9% and 73.6%, respectively. Conclusion: The use of the DDI-AI device may quickly, safely, and effectively improve dermoscopy performance, skin cancer diagnosis, and management when used by dermatologists, independent of training and experience.Keywords
This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- Effect of Reflectance Confocal Microscopy for Suspect Lesions on Diagnostic Accuracy in MelanomaJAMA Dermatology, 2022
- Melanoma Risk Factors and PreventionClinics in Plastic Surgery, 2021
- Optical coherence tomography imaging of melanoma skin cancerLasers in Medical Science, 2018
- Real-world performance and utility of a noninvasive gene expression assay to evaluate melanoma risk in pigmented lesionsMelanoma Research, 2018
- Ugly Duckling Sign as a Major Factor of Efficiency in Melanoma DetectionJAMA Dermatology, 2017
- Clinical performance of the Nevisense system in cutaneous melanoma detection: an international, multicentre, prospective and blinded clinical trial on efficacy and safetyBritish Journal of Dermatology, 2014
- The Performance of MelaFindArchives of Dermatology, 2011
- Melanoma Outcomes for Medicare PatientsArchives of Dermatology, 2007
- Three-point checklist of dermoscopy: an open internet studyBritish Journal of Dermatology, 2005
- Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical InferenceJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1927