MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411732819 · doi:10.1093/bjd/ljaf085.213

AI16 Performance of a deep neural network in diagnosing lesions referred on the suspected skin cancer pathway: a prospective observational study

2025· article· en· W4411732819 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander D G Anderson, Hannah Morgan, Maryam Sadeghi, Majid Razmara, Pascale Guitera

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsMetaOptima Technology (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyMedicineSkin cancerCancerProspective cohort studyDermatologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Several countries, including the UK, have approved commercial artificial intelligence (AI) products as medical devices to assist in the diagnosis of skin cancer. However, lack of robust real-world data has led to professional bodies recommending against their use outside research environments. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of an internationally proven deep neural network as a screening tool in patients referred from primary care on the suspected skin cancer pathway. Dermoscopic images were obtained from patients attending a community lesion imaging clinic following referral from primary care on the suspected skin cancer pathway. Ultimate diagnosis was based on histology where available, face-to-face clinical opinion if no histology was obtained, and the opinion of two dermatology specialists with over 10 years’ experience for patients discharged directly from teletriage without histology or face-to-face review. Images were assessed by the neural network and binary categorization was performed. The algorithm was set to detect invasive malignancies and premalignant conditions (actinic keratosis, Bowen disease, keratoacanthoma) and was trained to dismiss benign naevi, benign keratotic lesions (seborrhoeic keratosis, lichen planus-like keratosis, solar lentigines), dermatofibromata and benign vascular lesions. In total, 333 of 382 lesions from consecutive patients who gave research consent were included. Reasons for exclusion were pen artefact on dermoscopic image (26), lesion resolved prior to imaging clinic (eight) inappropriate site (six), poor image quality (five) and other (four). Ultimate diagnoses were basal cell carcinoma (62), squamous cell carcinoma (19), melanoma (11), other malignancy (one), benign keratotic (80), actinic keratosis (61), Bowen disease (20), benign naevus (17), benign vascular (nine), keratoacanthoma (eight) and other benign (45). Overall, 81 of 333 lesions (24.3%) were classified by the algorithm as benign and 252 (75.7%) were flagged as possibly malignant or premalignant. Sensitivity for cancer was 100% (93 of 93 detected). Sensitivity for premalignant conditions was 97% (86 of 89 detected). Specificity for all patients was 51.7% (78 of 151 benign lesions correctly classified). Specificity when removing the ‘other benign’ category, which is in the algorithm’s exclusion criteria and not part of its training, was 65.1% (71 of 109 lesions accurately categorized). Two actinic keratoses and one cases of Bowen disease were incorrectly classified as benign. The algorithm performed extremely well on this real-life case series and detected 100% of invasive malignancies. AI screening of suspected skin cancer referrals is likely to play a significant part in addressing future National Health Service capacity–demand mismatch and would have reduced the caseload requiring specialist opinion by 24.3% in this series. There is urgent need in the UK for further transparent clinical trials and open competition between AI products on large real-world datasets. Further stratification of benign and premalignant conditions may lead to greater benefit than binary classification.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of DermatologySame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207