Systematic outperformance of 112 dermatologists in multiclass skin cancer image classification by convolutional neural networks

Background: Recently, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) systematically outperformed dermatologists in distinguishing dermoscopic melanoma and nevi images. However, such a binary classification does not reflect the clinical reality of skin cancer screenings in which multiple diagnoses need to be taken into account. Methods: Using 11,444 dermoscopic images, which covered dermatologic diagnoses comprising the majority of commonly pigmented skin lesions commonly faced in skin cancer screenings, a CNN was trained through novel deep learning techniques. A test set of 300 biopsy-verified images was used to compare the classifier's performance with that of 112 dermatologists from 13 German university hospitals. The primary end-point was the correct classification of the different lesions into benign and malignant. The secondary end-point was the correct classification of the images into one of the five diagnostic categories. Findings: Sensitivity and specificity of dermatologists for the primary end-point were 74.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 67.0-81.8%) and 59.8% (95% CI: 49.8-69.8%), respectively. At equal sensitivity, the algorithm achieved a specificity of 91.3% (95% CI: 85.5-97.1%). For the secondary end-point, the mean sensitivity and specificity of the dermatologists were at 56.5% (95% CI: 42.8-70.2%) and 89.2% (95% CI: 85.0-93.3%), respectively. At equal sensitivity, the algorithm achieved a specificity of 98.8%. Two-sided McNemar tests revealed significance for the primary end-point (p < 0.001). For the secondary end-point, outperformance (p < 0.001) was achieved except for basal cell carcinoma (on-par performance). Interpretation: Our findings show that automated classification of dermoscopic melanoma and nevi images is extendable to a multiclass classification problem, thus better reflecting clinical differential diagnoses, while still outperforming dermatologists at a significant level (p < 0.001). (C) 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd

A convolutional neural network trained with dermoscopic images performed on par with 145 dermatologists in a clinical melanoma image classification task

Background: Recent studies have demonstrated the use of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to classify images of melanoma with accuracies comparable to those achieved by board-certified dermatologists. However, the performance of a CNN exclusively trained with dermoscopic images in a clinical image classification task in direct competition with a large number of dermatologists has not been measured to date. This study compares the performance of a convolutional neuronal network trained with dermoscopic images exclusively for identifying melanoma in clinical photographs with the manual grading of the same images by dermatologists. Methods: We compared automatic digital melanoma classification with the performance of 145 dermatologists of 12 German university hospitals. We used methods from enhanced deep learning to train a CNN with 12,378 open-source dermoscopic images. We used 100 clinical images to compare the performance of the CNN to that of the dermatologists. Dermatologists were compared with the deep neural network in terms of sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristics. Findings: The mean sensitivity and specificity achieved by the dermatologists with clinical images was 89.4% (range: 55.0%-100%) and 64.4% (range: 22.5%-92.5%). At the same sensitivity, the CNN exhibited a mean specificity of 68.2% (range 47.5%-86.25%). Among the dermatologists, the attendings showed the highest mean sensitivity of 92.8% at a mean specificity of 57.7%. With the same high sensitivity of 92.8%, the CNN had a mean specificity of 61.1%. Interpretation: For the first time, dermatologist-level image classification was achieved on a clinical image classification task without training on clinical images. The CNN had a smaller variance of results indicating a higher robustness of computer vision compared with human assessment for dermatologic image classification tasks. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)