Using Artificial Intelligence as a Melanoma Screening Tool in Self-Referred Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Early detection of melanoma requires timely access to medical care. In this study, we examined the feasibility of using artificial intelligence (AI) to flag possible melanomas in self-referred patients concerned that a skin lesion might be cancerous. Methods: Patients were recruited for the study through advertisements in 2 hospitals in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Lesions of concern were initially examined by a trained medical student and if the study criteria were met, the lesions were then scanned using the FotoFinder System ® . The images were analyzed using their proprietary computer software. Macroscopic and dermoscopic images were evaluated by 3 experienced dermatologists and a senior dermatology resident, all blinded to the AI results. Suspicious lesions identified by the AI or any of the 3 dermatologists were then excised. Results: Seventeen confirmed malignancies were found, including 10 melanomas. Six melanomas were not flagged by the AI. These lesions showed ambiguous atypical melanocytic proliferations, and all were diagnostically challenging to the dermatologists and to the dermatopathologists. Eight malignancies were seen in patients with a family history of melanoma. The AI’s ability to diagnose malignancy is not inferior to the dermatologists examining dermoscopic images. Conclusion: AI, used in this study, may serve as a practical skin cancer screening aid. While it does have technical and diagnostic limitations, its inclusion in a melanoma screening program, directed at those with a concern about a particular lesion would be valuable in providing timely access to the diagnosis of skin cancer.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".