The State of Artificial Intelligence in Skin Cancer Publications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) in skin cancer is a promising research field to assist physicians and to provide support to patients remotely. Physicians' awareness to new developments in AI research is important to define the best practices and scope of integrating AI-enabled technologies within a clinical setting. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the characteristics and trends of AI skin cancer publications from dermatology journals. METHODS: AI skin cancer publications were retrieved in June 2022 from the Web of Science. Publications were screened by title, abstract, and keywords to assess eligibility. Publications were fully reviewed. Publications were divided between nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC), melanoma, and skin cancer studies. The primary measured outcome was the number of citations. The secondary measured outcomes were articles' general characteristics and features related to AI. RESULTS: A total of 168 articles were included: 25 on NMSC, 77 on melanoma, and 66 on skin cancer. The most common types of skin cancers were melanoma (134, 79.8%), basal cell carcinoma (61, 36.3%), and squamous cell carcinoma (45, 26.9%). All articles were published between 2000 and 2022, with 49 (29.2%) of them being published in 2021. Original studies that developed or assessed an algorithm predominantly used supervised learning (66, 97.0%) and deep neural networks (42, 67.7%). The most used imaging modalities were standard dermoscopy (76, 45.2%) and clinical images (39, 23.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Most publications focused on developing or assessing screening technologies with mainly deep neural network algorithms. This indicates the eminent need for dermatologists to label or annotate images used by novel AI systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.057 | 0.070 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".