MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200578556 · doi:10.2196/35391

Assessing Generalizability of Deep Learning Models Trained on Standardized and Nonstandardized Images and Their Performance Against Teledermatologists

2021· article· en· W4200578556 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ibukun Oloruntoba, Toan D. Nguyen, Zongyuan Ge, Tine Vestergaard, Victoria Mar

Bibliographic record

VenueIproceedings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkGeneralizability theoryArtificial intelligenceStandardizationComputer scienceDeep learningPattern recognition (psychology)Receiver operating characteristicMachine learningMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are a type of artificial intelligence that show promise as a diagnostic aid for skin cancer. However, the majority are trained using retrospective image data sets of varying quality and image capture standardization. Objective The aim of our study is to use CNN models with the same architecture, but different training image sets, and test variability in performance when classifying skin cancer images in different populations, acquired with different devices. Additionally, we wanted to assess the performance of the models against Danish teledermatologists when tested on images acquired from Denmark. Methods Three CNNs with the same architecture were trained. CNN-NS was trained on 25,331 nonstandardized images taken from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration using different image capture devices. CNN-S was trained on 235,268 standardized images, and CNN-S2 was trained on 25,331 standardized images (matched for number and classes of training images to CNN-NS). Both standardized data sets (CNN-S and CNN-S2) were provided by Molemap using the same image capture device. A total of 495 Danish patients with 569 images of skin lesions predominantly involving Fitzpatrick skin types II and III were used to test the performance of the models. Four teledermatologists independently diagnosed and assessed the images taken of the lesions. Primary outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC). Results A total of 569 images were taken from 495 patients (n=280, 57% women, n=215, 43% men; mean age 55, SD 17 years) for this study. On these images, CNN-S achieved an AUROC of 0.861 (95% CI 0.830-0.889; P<.001), and CNN-S2 achieved an AUROC of 0.831 (95% CI 0.798-0.861; P=.009), with both outperforming CNN-NS, which achieved an AUROC of 0.759 (95% CI 0.722-0.794; P<.001; P=.009). When the CNNs were matched to the mean sensitivity and specificity of the teledermatologists, the model’s resultant sensitivities and specificities were surpassed by the teledermatologists. However, when compared to CNN-S, the differences were not statistically significant (P=.10; P=.05). Performance across all CNN models and teledermatologists was influenced by the image quality. Conclusions CNNs trained on standardized images had improved performance and therefore greater generalizability in skin cancer classification when applied to an unseen data set. This is an important consideration for future algorithm development, regulation, and approval. Further, when tested on these unseen test images, the teledermatologists clinically outperformed all the CNN models; however, the difference was deemed to be statistically insignificant when compared to CNN-S. Conflicts of Interest VM received speakers fees from Merck, Eli Lily, Novartis and Bristol Myers Squibb. VM is the principal investigator for a clinical trial funded by the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services with 1:1 contribution from MoleMap.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIproceedingsSame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207