
==== Front
Cureus
Cureus
2168-8184
Cureus
2168-8184
Cureus Palo Alto (CA)

10.7759/cureus.69818
Dermatology
Healthcare Technology
The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis of Melanoma
Muacevic Alexander
Adler John R
Kalidindi Sadhana 1
1 Clinical Research, Apollo Radiology International Academy, Hyderabad, IND
Sadhana Kalidindi skalidindi359@gmail.com
20 9 2024
9 2024
16 9 e6981820 9 2024
Copyright © 2024, Kalidindi et al.
2024
Kalidindi et al.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
This article is available from https://www.cureus.com/articles/281328-the-role-of-artificial-intelligence-in-the-diagnosis-of-melanoma
The incidence of melanoma, the most aggressive form of skin cancer, continues to rise globally, particularly among fair-skinned populations (type I and II). Early detection is crucial for improving patient outcomes, and recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have shown promise in enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of melanoma diagnosis and management.

This review examines the role of AI in skin lesion diagnostics, highlighting two main approaches: machine learning, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNNs), and expert systems. AI techniques have demonstrated high accuracy in classifying dermoscopic images, often matching or surpassing dermatologists’ performance. Integrating AI into dermatology has improved tasks, such as lesion classification, segmentation, and risk prediction, facilitating earlier and more accurate interventions.

Despite these advancements, challenges remain, including biases in training data, interpretability issues, and integration of AI into clinical workflows. Ensuring diverse data representation and maintaining high standards of image quality are essential for reliable AI performance. Future directions involve the development of more sophisticated models, such as vision-language and multimodal models, and federated learning to address data privacy and generalizability concerns. Continuous validation and ethical integration of AI into clinical practice are vital for realizing its full potential for improving melanoma diagnosis and patient care.

convolutional neural networks
dermoscopy
artificial intelligence
machine learning
melanoma
==== Body
pmcIntroduction and background

Skin cancer is one of the most prevalent forms of cancer and is known to have a high malignancy rate. In fair-skinned individuals, its incidence has increased annually by 3-7% over the past few decades, surpassing the incidence of almost all other malignancies [1,2]. Therefore, thorough screening programs and tests are crucial to identify skin cancer in its early stages. Automating the identification of skin moles using computational artificial intelligence (AI) and image analysis techniques is essential for achieving this goal. The most serious form of skin cancer, melanoma, can be identified early, and this has a major impact on patient outcomes. It reduces the chance of life-threatening consequences, slows the progression of the disease, and increases the possibility that therapy will be successful. In addition, shorter recovery times, less invasive surgical procedures, and successful use of adjuvant medicines are all made possible by early identification. Improving patient outcomes mostly depends on timely action and routine skin examinations [3].

AI has become a transformative tool in multiple industries, including medical diagnostics [4-6]. In dermatology, AI has garnered significant interest for its potential to automate the diagnosis and management of skin conditions [7]. Accurate and timely identification of skin lesions, such as melanoma and other skin cancers, is critical for early intervention and improved patient outcomes. Two primary AI methodologies have been employed for skin lesion diagnostics. The first method leverages machine learning (ML) [8], particularly neural networks and various convolutional neural networks (CNNs) [9], which require large and dependable training datasets that are characterized by complex internal mechanisms that are not easily interpretable by human experts. This lack of transparency, often referred to as the 'black-box' problem, arises when machine learning models, particularly deep learning (DL) algorithms, process vast amounts of data and generate predictions without providing clear explanations of how specific inputs lead to particular outcomes. As a result, human experts face challenges in validating, trusting, or understanding the decision-making process, limiting the system’s applicability in critical fields like healthcare or legal decision-making where interpretability is crucial [9]. The second method involves expert systems that rely on information ontologies and utilize clear rules and dependencies to codify expert knowledge [10]. While these systems provide transparency and ease of interpretation, they are labor-intensive to develop and maintain.

The incorporation of AI techniques in dermatology has resulted in notable progress in the automated analysis of skin lesion images. These AI algorithms have demonstrated considerable success in various tasks, such as classifying skin lesions, segmenting images, extracting features, and predicting risks. Despite these achievements, recent studies have identified several challenges and obstacles to the application of AI in skin cancer diagnostics [11,12]. This review aims to explore the latest advancements in AI for diagnosing and managing melanoma while also addressing the current issues and potential future developments in this field.

Review

Epidemiology of melanoma

Although the incidence and mortality rates of most cancers have been declining over the years, melanoma continues to increase, particularly among fair-skinned populations of European descent. The global melanoma burden has increased by 41% from 230,000 cases in 2012 to 325,000 in 2020, with the highest rates observed in Australia and New Zealand [13]. In the United States (US), melanoma is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer, with an estimated 99,780 new cases and 7,650 deaths in 2022 and 97,920 new cases of melanoma in situ, closely matching the number of invasive melanoma cases [14]. Invasive melanomas represent only 1% of all skin cancer cases but are responsible for over 75% of skin cancer deaths, with a five-year survival rate of 93.5%, primarily because of a high proportion of localized disease [15]. Despite the high survival rate, most melanoma deaths are due to Stage I disease progression, although survival rates for Stage III and IV diseases have improved significantly to 73.9% and 35.1%, respectively, owing to advancements in targeted therapies and immunotherapy [15,16]. The median age of melanoma diagnosis in the US is 66 years, with lifetime risks of 2.6% for white people, 0.6% for Hispanic people, and 0.1% for black people [17]. Men are 1.6 times more likely to develop melanoma than women, with the common sites being the arms and legs for women and the head, neck, back, and trunk for men [18]. African American patients are more prone to developing melanoma in sun-protected areas and generally present with more advanced disease at diagnosis, leading to a poorer prognosis compared to Caucasian patients [15].

Traditional diagnostic modalities

Classification System  

The current clinicopathological classification of melanoma categorizes melanomas into four main subtypes: lentigo maligna, superficial spreading, acral lentiginous, and nodular, each with specific in situ lesions [19,20]. This classification relies heavily on interpreting histopathological findings, which can be subjective and vary among observers [21-24]. While certain melanomas fit neatly into a subtype, many exhibit mixed histopathologic features, making precise classification challenging [25,26]. For example, acral lentiginous melanomas can display histopathological patterns that are typical of other subtypes. Additionally, this system does not include prognostic data by default; instead, it incorporates extrinsic factors, such as Breslow depth and ulceration. The classification assumes a linear progression model, where in situ lesions precede invasive melanoma and all subtypes are managed based on thickness. Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced a new classification that adds epidemiologic and genomic information, expanding to nine subtypes, including rare and mucosal melanomas [27]. This updated classification also followed a linear progression model, suggesting that melanocytic nevi with the same driver mutations act as precursor lesions. However, there is scant evidence supporting this model, and the transformation rate of these nevi into melanoma is unknown, with the rare occurrence of such nevi complicating verification. The long-standing study of Clark/dysplastic nevus does not corroborate the precursor model of melanoma progression [28,29].

Clinical Diagnosis

The ABCDE criteria, including asymmetry, border irregularity, color variability, diameter of 6 mm or more, and evolution, have enhanced melanoma diagnosis sensitivity, with a naked-eye examination accuracy of approximately 65% [30-32]. Dermatoscopy, which uses 10× magnification and polarized light, has significantly improved bedside melanoma diagnosis by revealing subsurface structures and developing diagnostic criteria for various skin diseases [33]. Algorithms such as the seven-point checklist, Menzies method, and color, architecture, symmetry, and homogeneity (CASH) criteria have improved melanoma identification sensitivity and specificity by up to 18% and 10%, respectively [34-37]. Despite these improvements, a recent Cochrane review pointed out limited evidence for the effectiveness of dermatoscopy, stating that its practical utility remains unconfirmed [38]. Additionally, the pigmented lesion assay, a tape-strip test that assesses ribonucleic acid (RNA) markers overexpressed in melanoma, has demonstrated over 99% negative predictive value and over 91% sensitivity, though further validation is needed in general clinical practice [39-41].

Histopathological and Molecular Diagnosis 

Histopathological diagnosis of melanoma remains the gold standard, yet it is subjective and marked by interobserver variability, especially with smaller, thinner lesions [21-24]. Advances in immunohistochemical staining, such as PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma (PRAME) and p16, have enhanced diagnostic accuracy through molecular insights [41-45]. In parallel, molecular diagnostics such as comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) offer greater precision. CGH detects chromosomal copy number variations with over 95% sensitivity in melanomas, while FISH, which targets specific genomic segments, provides high sensitivity and specificity, albeit with some false positives in polyploid lesions such as Spitz nevi [46-48]. Gene expression profiling (GEP) tests, such as myPath, leverage real-time quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) technology to assess gene expression and show high accuracy in clear melanocytic lesions, although more studies are needed for ambiguous cases [49-51].

Dermoscopy

Dermoscopy, also called dermatoscopy or epiluminescence microscopy, is a noninvasive method that uses a handheld dermatoscope to examine skin lesions [52,53]. This technique allows for enhanced visualization of the superficial layers of the skin, leading to better diagnostic accuracy for pigmented lesions compared with the naked eye [54,55]. The procedure starts by distinguishing melanocytic from non-melanocytic lesions, followed by classification of the melanocytic lesion with an algorithm. Adding dermoscopy to melanoma screening reduces the number of excisional biopsies performed [56]. Diagnostic accuracy depends on the dermatologist's expertise, the complexity of the lesions, and the assessment algorithm used, with experts performing better than non-experts [57-59]. A systematic review of studies from 1987 to 2000 concluded that dermoscopy enhanced melanoma diagnostic accuracy for experienced practitioners [52]. Nonetheless, dermoscopy does not always definitively differentiate early melanomas from benign melanocytic lesions [52].

AI principles

AI's applications of AI are vast, particularly in medicine, where it improves healthcare delivery, clinical decision-making, and patient treatment planning [60-62]. ML is considered the core of AI and includes supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning algorithms, each with distinct learning methods [63,64]. Deep learning (DL), an advanced ML type using multilayer neural networks, has become crucial in medical applications, predicting drug responses, and optimizing dosages through complex data analysis [65,66]. AI's role in oncology is significant. It enhances clinical image interpretation and diagnoses, as exemplified by FDA-approved software for early cancer detection [67-69]. In melanoma, AI aids precision medicine by analyzing genetic, molecular, and biochemical data, tailoring treatments, and predicting therapeutic efficacy [70-73].

The role of AI in skin pathology

AI and Diagnosis of Pigmented Lesions  

Pigmented lesion classification initially utilized classical ML techniques in the 1990s, with CNN-based methods emerging in 2016 [74-76]. These techniques often involve preprocessing to reduce illumination and noise, and to smooth the surrounding skin texture to enhance lesion interpretation. Nasr-Esfahani et al. created a CNN model that was trained on a dataset expanded from 170 to 6120 images through cropping, scaling, and rotation. This model achieved 81% sensitivity, 80% specificity, and 81% accuracy for melanoma detection [74]. Other studies reported sensitivities up to 90% and accuracies between 82% and 94% [76-78]. Esteva et al. showed that a pre-trained CNN using 129,450 images, including 3,374 dermoscopy images, matched the performance of 21 board-certified dermatologists, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.96 for carcinomas and melanomas [79].

Soenksen et al. explored AI's accuracy in classifying skin lesions from wide-field images, achieving 90% sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing suspicious lesions [80]. Their study also highlighted an 83% agreement between CNN's intrapatient saliency ranking and dermatologists' rankings. Although dermoscopic images are more frequently used in AI studies, a review indicated that only 12 of 51 studies used gross images, stressing the need for more research with clinical images [81]. Given that dermoscopy is often inaccessible to non-dermatologists, further examination of gross clinical images is essential [82-85]. 

Chatbots in dermatoscopy serve as AI-driven tools designed to assist dermatologists by generating differential diagnoses and educational insights based on dermoscopic descriptions of skin lesions, enhancing diagnostic accuracy and supporting novice practitioners. A recent survey showed that AI Chatbots performed well in generating differential diagnoses for basal cell carcinoma; however, its performance was lower for squamous cell carcinoma and inflammatory dermatoses, though participants remained generally satisfied with its diagnostic and educational capabilities [86].

AI and Pigmented Lesion Dermoscopy 

AI has been used in dermoscopic image analysis for over 20 years, initially utilizing classical ML techniques, before transitioning to CNNs in 2016. These advancements have enabled a more accurate classification of dermoscopic images as benign or malignant [74,76,77]. Comparative studies have shown that AI can match or even outperform human experts in the identification of pigmented skin lesions. For example, Esteva et al. found that a pre-trained CNN achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.96 for both carcinomas and melanomas, surpassing the performance of dermatologists in certain scenarios [79]. Other studies have similarly reported higher specificity and sensitivity for CNNs than for dermatologists when given clinical and dermoscopic data [87].

Research has also explored how AI can aid dermoscopic evaluation, particularly in low-confidence diagnoses. Marchetti et al. showed that AI support increased the accuracy of lesion classification for dermatologists and residents, increasing correct classification rates from 73.4% to 75.4% and from 69.4% to 72.6%, respectively [88]. However, AI models are sensitive to minor image changes that do not affect human examiners, as demonstrated by Maron et al., in which slight image alterations led to significant diagnostic variability [89].

CNNs have been applied to classify pigmented lesions in special locations, such as acral and mucosal surfaces, with mixed results. Winkler et al. found high accuracy for lentigo maligna melanoma (AUC of 0.926), acral melanoma (0.928), and superficial spreading melanoma (0.989) but lower accuracy for mucosal and nail unit melanomas (AUCs of 0.754 and 0.621, respectively) [90]. Comparisons between CNNs and dermatologists show that CNNs can perform as well as or sometimes better than experienced dermatologists [91]. Furthermore, AI has improved clinical decision-making, and Lee et al. demonstrated that CNN-generated diagnoses enhanced clinicians' accuracy in evaluating acral-pigmented lesions, improving concordance and reducing performance disparities among different physician groups [92].

AI and Pigmented Lesion Pathology 

Computer-aided histopathologic diagnosis began with the introduction of TEGUMENT in 1987, which used a decision tree to assist pathologists, although it saw limited use due to its oversimplification of medical knowledge [93]. A renewed interest in AI for dermatopathology came with whole-slide image (WSI) scanners and CNNs, facilitating advanced image classification [94]. In 2019, Hekler et al. used CNNs to classify melanocytic lesions, achieving a 19% discordance rate with dermatopathologists, comparable to the pathologists' own variability [95]. Hart et al. demonstrated the critical role of image selection in CNN training for classifying melanocytic neoplasms into Spitz and conventional melanocytic nevi. The CNN achieved 92% accuracy with curated images but only 52% accuracy with non-curated images owing to misclassification based on predominant features [96]. This study highlights the need for meticulous image selection to maintain high diagnostic accuracy in AI models.

AI faces challenges in pathology owing to the immense variability in histologic morphology, necessitating large training datasets. Brinker et al. addressed this using a larger comparator group of dermatopathologists, achieving a CNN accuracy of 92% with annotated slides and 88% with unannotated slides [97]. AI models are still sensitive to slide staining variations and are limited by binary classification schemes, which can oversimplify complex diagnoses, such as neoplasms with uncertain malignant potential.

AI and dermatopathology education

Historically, the lack of frameworks for organizing medical knowledge has hindered the development of AI in education. Feit et al. created the Hypertext Atlas of Dermatopathology, an online resource containing over 3,000 high-resolution images with annotations and clinical and microscopic descriptions. This resource allows users to narrow or broaden differential diagnoses through hypertext links, providing detailed information upon reaching a target diagnosis. However, its utility depends on the user's dermatopathology knowledge base [98]. Crowley et al. developed SlideTutor, an intelligent tutoring system with a virtual microscope, and WSIs that teach algorithmic problem-solving in the visual classification of inflammatory dermatoses. This system provides step-by-step feedback, simulating one-on-one tutoring and improving diagnostic reasoning by guiding learners through morphological feature identification, differential diagnosis, and final diagnosis [99-101]. In a study comparing case- and knowledge-focused interfaces in SlideTutor, both interfaces demonstrated equivalent learning gains and retention, although students preferred the knowledge-focused interface because of their higher certainty levels [102]. AI-based systems such as SlideTutor can measure diagnostic errors and heuristics, providing valuable feedback to reduce errors and enhance learning [103,104].

AI has also shown potential for diagnostic reporting education. Crowley et al. developed ReportTutor, an intelligent tutoring system combining a virtual microscope, WSIs, and a natural language interface to aid dermatopathology trainees in preparing diagnostic reports for melanoma. This system provides feedback on prognostic features, measurement accuracy, and report style, thereby promoting standardized and accurate diagnostic reports [105]. El Saadawi et al. evaluated the impact of feedback timing on AI-based instructions for melanoma diagnostic reporting. Both immediate and delayed feedback led to significant learning gains, with most improvements occurring early in the tutoring sessions. The study also explored metacognition and found no correlation between learning gains and learners' certainty about their performance, suggesting that AI-based instruction can effectively enhance diagnostic reporting, regardless of feedback timing [104].

Smartphone apps

With advanced cameras and computational capabilities, smartphones are increasingly being used in medical applications, including skin self-examination and teledermatology. Devices like DermLite and MoleScope improve image quality, enabling patients to monitor lesions and send high-quality images for professional analysis. Early mobile apps for melanoma detection used methods such as ABCD feature extraction and support vector machine (SVM) classifiers. Recent innovations have introduced CNNs for more precise melanoma classification. Iowa State University developed an app using a detachable 10x lens, achieving 88% accuracy with a support vector machine (SVM) classifier based on a radial basis function (RBF) kernel [106]. Another application, using CNN, achieved 78.8% accuracy, 91.3% sensitivity, and 73% specificity on 8,000 images [107]. The PAD-UFES-20 dataset app leveraging a modified ResNet50 CNN achieved 85% accuracy and 96% reproducibility by incorporating clinical data [108]. The SkinScreener app, now a commercialized medical device, demonstrated a sensitivity of 96.4% and specificity of 94.85% for melanoma risk assessment [109]. SkinVision, a widely reviewed application, has used ML algorithms since 2018, showing a sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 78% in triaging skin lesions based on over 130,000 training images [110-112].

Limitations and challenges

AI research in dermatology is in its early stages and encounters various challenges, such as biases, interpretability issues, regulatory barriers, and integration difficulties with current clinical workflows. AI algorithms must be robust and transparent to enhance patient care without new complications. AI algorithms learn from training datasets; however, confounders can also affect their accuracy. For example, surgical pen markers on images can mislead AI models by associating them with malignancy, as noted by Winkler et al. [113]. Additionally, biases in training datasets can reinforce existing healthcare disparities, with early AI models underperforming on darker skin types owing to a lack of diverse data representation [114]. It is imperative to ensure diverse and equitable data representations to produce accurate and fair AI output.

Maintaining image quality and standardizing capturing modalities in dermatology AI research is critical for data consistency. Diverse sources and settings create heterogeneous datasets that affect AI performance [115,116]. Techniques such as saliency maps and content-based image retrieval are being developed to improve AI transparency and trust. Integrating AI into clinical practice presents further challenges, including medical-legal issues, data privacy, and liability [117,118]. AI models require continuous validation to maintain reliability, as many have been approved based on retrospective data, without thorough prospective trials [119]. Building trust among stakeholders and validating AI models across multiple sites is crucial for realizing AI's full potential in dermatology [120,121]. Table 1 summarizes the challenges associated with AI in dermatopathology.

Table 1 Challenges associated with AI in dermatopathology.

AI: artificial intelligence.

Challenge	Summary	
Model validation	Many AI models lack true external validation sets, making them less representative of the general population. Furthermore, standardized benchmarks for comparing models are scarce due to the limited availability of comprehensive public datasets.	
Data quality	The performance of AI models can be hindered by data quality issues, which may arise from user errors during initial data collection, resulting in artifacts, or from inherent deficiencies in the source data, leading to limited diversity and class imbalances not addressed by the model.	
Algorithmic bias and health equity	AI models may exhibit biases due to the training data selection, affecting their ability to generalize across different racial and socioeconomic demographics.	
Implementation and user confidence	The acceptance of AI is often restricted by regulatory bodies like the FDA, as well as by clinicians and patients, where mistrust or uncertainty may hinder its adoption.	

Future directions

Recent advancements in language models, specifically vision-language models (VLMs) and multimodal models, have shown significant potential in dermatology. These models, such as Skin-GPT4, can interpret clinical skin lesion photographs, offer descriptions and diagnoses, and have applications ranging from patient chatbots to triage tools. By integrating patient demographics, visual data, and genetic information, these models aim to provide comprehensive medical insights, enhancing generalist medical AI capabilities [122-124]. As datasets expand and computational power increases, these models are expected to improve in accuracy, aiding in the diagnosis of complex skin conditions and overall dermatological practice.

Federated learning (FL) addresses data privacy and accessibility issues by allowing AI models to be trained on datasets from multiple institutions without data transfer, maintaining privacy, and improving generalizability. Successful in radiology and oncology, FL holds promise in dermatology, especially in reducing performance disparities in underrepresented skin types [125-127]. Foundation models (FMs) can be locally fine-tuned to enable institutions to create customized models for their specific demographics. However, to fully leverage these technologies, the challenges in data quality, aggregation, and infrastructure must be addressed. Additionally, advancements in AI model architecture and comprehensive evaluation metrics, including clinical value, fairness, and transparency, are essential for the progress of dermatological AI [128]. Medicolegal aspects also need careful consideration, as the use of AI in dermatology may raise concerns about liability in cases of misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. Ensuring regulatory compliance, establishing clear accountability, and maintaining transparency in AI-driven decision-making will be crucial to addressing potential legal risks associated with AI integration in clinical practice.

Conclusions

The integration of AI in dermatology, particularly in the diagnosis and management of melanoma, holds significant promise but also presents several challenges that must be addressed. AI techniques, particularly those utilizing CNNs, have demonstrated high accuracy in classifying dermoscopic images and aid in the detection of melanoma. Mobile applications equipped with advanced imaging capabilities and AI algorithms have further enhanced the ability to monitor and assess skin lesions remotely, thereby improving early detection and patient outcomes. However, the variability in image quality, biases in training datasets, and complexity of integrating AI into existing clinical workflows highlight the need for robust and transparent AI models. Ensuring diverse and equitable data representation and maintaining high image quality standards are critical for the accuracy and fairness of AI outputs in dermatology. Future advancements in AI for melanoma diagnosis are likely to be driven by the development of more sophisticated models, such as VLMs and multimodal models, which can integrate diverse data types for comprehensive medical insights. FL offers a solution to data privacy and accessibility challenges by enabling collaborative model training across institutions without data transfer, thereby enhancing generalizability. Additionally, ongoing improvements in the AI model architecture and evaluation metrics are essential to ensure clinical value, fairness, and transparency. As AI continues to evolve, its successful implementation in dermatology depends on addressing these challenges and fostering trust among stakeholders through continuous validation and ethical integration into clinical practice.

The author would like to thank the MedDots FZC team for their assistance with the literature search and language editing.

Disclosures

Author Contributions

Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following:

Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work.

Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work.

Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Concept and design:  Sadhana Kalidindi

Drafting of the manuscript:  Sadhana Kalidindi

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content:  Sadhana Kalidindi
==== Refs
References

1 Epidemiology of melanoma Clin Exp Dermatol Marks R 459 463 25 2000 11044179
2 Epidemiology of melanoma Cutaneous Melanoma: Etiology and Therapy Matthews NH Li WQ Qureshi AA 3 22 Singapore Codon Publications 2017 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481862/
3 Increasing transparency in machine learning through bootstrap simulation and shapely additive explanations PLoS One Huang AA Huang SY 0 18 2023
4 Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and deep learning for clinical outcome prediction Emerg Top Life Sci Pettit RW Fullem R Cheng C Amos CI 729 745 5 2021 34927670
5 Machine learning and artificial intelligence in research and healthcare Injury Rubinger L Gazendam A Ekhtiari S Bhandari M 0 73 54 2023
6 Early detection of melanoma: reviewing the ABCDEs J Am Acad Dermatol Tsao H Olazagasti JM Cordoro KM 717 723 72 2015 25698455
7 Principles, applications, and future of artificial intelligence in dermatology Front Med (Lausanne) Omiye JA Gui H Daneshjou R Cai ZR Muralidharan V 1278232 10 2023 37901399
8 Melanoma detection using recurrent neural network Advances in Automation, Signal Processing, Instrumentation, and Control Gowthami V Sneha G 1563 1573 Singapore Springer 700 2021 http://10.1007/978-981-15-8221-9_146
9 Short-term lesion change detection for melanoma screening with novel siamese neural network IEEE Trans Med Imaging Zhang B Wang Z Gao J 840 851 40 2021 33180721
10 Medical expert systems survey Int J Eng Inf Syst Abu-Nasser B 218 224 7 2017 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3082734
11 Basic principles of artificial intelligence in dermatology explained using melanoma J Dtsch Dermatol Ges Hartmann T Passauer J Hartmann J Schmidberger L Kneilling M Volc S 339 347 22 2024 38361141
12 Artificial intelligence and radiomics: clinical applications for patients with advanced melanoma treated with immunotherapy Diagnostics (Basel) McGale J Hama J Yeh R 3065 13 2023 37835808
13 Global burden of cutaneous melanoma in 2020 and projections to 2040 JAMA Dermatol Arnold M Singh D Laversanne M 495 503 158 2022 35353115
14 Cancer statistics, 2022 CA Cancer J Clin Siegel RL Miller KD Fuchs HE Jemal A 7 33 72 2022 35020204
15 SEER. Cancer stat facts: melanoma of the skin 6 2024 2024 https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html
16 Mortality burden and prognosis of thin melanomas overall and by subcategory of thickness, SEER registry data, 1992-2013 J Am Acad Dermatol Landow SM Gjelsvik A Weinstock MA 258 263 76 2017 27887797
17 American Cancer Society. Melanoma skin cancer statistics 6 2024 2023 https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/melanoma-skin-cancer/about/key-statistics.html
18 Evaluation of sex-specific incidence of melanoma JAMA Dermatol Olsen CM Thompson JF Pandeya N Whiteman DC 553 560 156 2020 32211827
19 The classification of malignant melanoma and its histologic reporting Cancer McGovern VJ Mihm Jr MC Bailly C 1446 1457 32 1973 4757934
20 Familial malignant melanoma JAMA Kopf AW Hellman LJ Rogers GS 1915 1919 256 1986 3761497
21 Pathologists' diagnosis of invasive melanoma and melanocytic proliferations: observer accuracy and reproducibility study BMJ Elmore JG Barnhill RL Elder DE 0 357 2017
22 Discordance in the histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma at a melanoma referral center J Am Acad Dermatol Shoo BA Sagebiel RW Kashani-Sabet M 751 756 62 2010 20303612
23 Interobserver variability on the histopathologic diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma and other pigmented skin lesions J Clin Oncol Corona R Mele A Amini M 1218 1223 14 1996 8648377
24 Discordance in the histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma and melanocytic nevi between expert pathologists Hum Pathol Farmer ER Gonin R Hanna MP 528 531 27 1996 8666360
25 Classification of cutaneous malignant melanoma: a reassessment of histopathologic criteria for the distinction of different types Cancer Interdiscip Int J Am Cancer Soc Weyers W Euler M Diaz‐Cascajo C 288 299 86 1999
26 Types of melanoma? J Am Acad Dermatol Hurt MA 1059 1060 58 2008 18485988
27 The 2018 World Health Organization classification of cutaneous, mucosal, and uveal melanoma: detailed analysis of 9 distinct subtypes defined by their evolutionary pathway Arch Pathol Lab Med Elder DE Bastian BC Cree IA Massi D Scolyer RA 500 522 144 2020 32057276
28 The dysplastic nevus: from historical perspective to management in the modern era: part II. Molecular aspects and clinical management J Am Acad Dermatol Duffy K Grossman D 19 12 67 2012
29 Dysplastic nevus part II: molecular/genetic profiles and management J Am Acad Dermatol Spaccarelli N Drozdowski R Peters MS Grant-Kels JM 13 20 88 2023 36252690
30 Accuracy in the clinical diagnosis and pattern of malignant melanoma at a dermatological clinic J Dermatol Lindelöf B Hedblad MA 461 464 21 1994 8089364
31 Accuracy in the clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma Arch Dermatol Grin CM Kopf AW Welkovich B Bart RS Levenstein MJ 763 766 126 1990 2189362
32 Clinical accuracy of the diagnosis of cutaneous malignant melanoma Br J Dermatol Morton CA Mackie RM 283 287 138 1998 9602875
33 Dermoscopy of pigmented skin lesions J Am Acad Dermatol Braun RP Rabinovitz HS Oliviero M Kopf AW Saurat JH 109 121 52 2005 15627088
34 Dermoscopy of pigmented skin lesions: results of a consensus meeting via the Internet J Am Acad Dermatol Argenziano G Soyer HP Chimenti S 679 693 48 2003 12734496
35 Is dermoscopy (epiluminescence microscopy) useful for the diagnosis of melanoma? Results of a meta-analysis using techniques adapted to the evaluation of diagnostic tests Arch Dermatol Bafounta ML Beauchet A Aegerter P Saiag P 1343 1350 137 2001 11594860
36 Systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of dermatoscopy in detecting malignant melanoma Med J Aust Mayer J 206 210 167 1997 9293268
37 Dermoscopy compared with naked eye examination for the diagnosis of primary melanoma: a meta-analysis of studies performed in a clinical setting Br J Dermatol Vestergaard ME Macaskill P Holt PE Menzies SW 669 676 159 2008
38 Dermoscopy, with and without visual inspection, for diagnosing melanoma in adults Cochrane Database Syst Rev Dinnes J Deeks JJ Chuchu N 0 12 2018
39 Real-world performance and utility of a noninvasive gene expression assay to evaluate melanoma risk in pigmented lesions Melanoma Res Ferris LK Gerami P Skelsey MK 478 482 28 2018 30004988
40 Development and validation of a noninvasive 2-gene molecular assay for cutaneous melanoma J Am Acad Dermatol Gerami P Yao Z Polsky D 114 120 76 2017 27707590
41 Utility of a noninvasive 2-gene molecular assay for cutaneous melanoma and effect on the decision to biopsy JAMA Dermatol Ferris LK Jansen B Ho J 675 680 153 2017 28445578
42 PRAME expression in melanocytic proliferations with intermediate histopathologic or spitzoid features J Cutan Pathol Raghavan SS Wang JY Kwok S Rieger KE Novoa RA Brown RA 1123 1131 47 2020 32700786
43 Use of PRAME immunostaining to distinguish early melanoma in situ from benign pigmented conditions J Cutan Pathol Olds H Utz S Abrams J Terrano D Mehregan D 510 514 49 2022 35146798
44 PRAME expression in melanocytic tumors Am J Surg Pathol Lezcano C Jungbluth AA Nehal KS Hollmann TJ Busam KJ 1456 1465 42 2018
45 The utility of PRAME immunohistochemistry in the evaluation of challenging melanocytic tumors J Cutan Pathol Alomari AK Tharp AW Umphress B Kowal RP 1115 1123 48 2021 33660310
46 Distinguishing melanocytic nevi from melanoma by DNA copy number changes: comparative genomic hybridization as a research and diagnostic tool Dermatol Ther Bauer J Bastian BC 40 49 19 2006 16405569
47 Single-nucleotide polymorphisms in DNA-repair genes and cutaneous melanoma Mutat Res Toxicol Environ Mutagen Figl A Scherer D Nagore E 8 16 702 2010
48 Through the looking glass and what you find there: making sense of comparative genomic hybridization and fluorescence in situ hybridization for melanoma diagnosis Mod Pathol Miedema J Andea AA 1318 1330 33 2020 32066861
49 Diagnostic distinction of malignant melanoma and benign nevi by a gene expression signature and correlation to clinical outcomes Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Ko JS Matharoo-Ball B Billings SD 1107 1113 26 2017 28377414
50 An independent validation of a gene expression signature to differentiate malignant melanoma from benign melanocytic nevi Cancer Clarke LE Flake DD 2nd Busam K 617 628 123 2017 27768230
51 Clinical validation of a gene expression signature that differentiates benign nevi from malignant melanoma J Cutan Pathol Clarke LE Warf MB Flake DD 2nd 244 252 42 2015 25727210
52 Diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy Lancet Oncol Kittler H Pehamberger H Wolff K 159 165 3 2002 11902502
53 In vivo epiluminescence microscopy of pigmented skin lesions. I. Pattern analysis of pigmented skin lesions J Am Acad Dermatol Pehamberger H Steiner A Wolff K 571 583 17 1987 3668002
54 Reliability and inter-observer agreement of dermoscopic diagnosis of melanoma and melanocytic naevi Eur J Cancer Prev Carli P De Giorgi V Naldi L Dosi G 397 402 7 1998 9884886
55 Epiluminescence microscopy as a useful approach in the early diagnosis of cutaneous malignant melanoma Melanoma Res Ascierto PA Satriano RA Palmieri G Parasole R Bosco L Castello G 529 537 8 1998 9918415
56 Addition of dermoscopy to conventional naked-eye examination in melanoma screening: a randomized study J Am Acad Dermatol Carli P de Giorgi V Chiarugi A 683 689 50 2004 15097950
57 Reevaluation of the ABCD rule for epiluminescence microscopy J Am Acad Dermatol Binder M Kittler H Steiner A 171 176 40 1999 10025741
58 Dermatoscopy of neoplastic skin lesions: recent advances, updates, and revisions Curr Treat Options Oncol Weber P Tschandl P Sinz C Kittler H 56 19 2018 30238167
59 Dermoscopic diagnosis by a trained clinician vs. a clinician with minimal dermoscopy training vs. computer-aided diagnosis of 341 pigmented skin lesions: a comparative study Br J Dermatol Piccolo D Ferrari A Peris K Diadone R Ruggeri B Chimenti S 481 486 147 2002 12207587
60 Artificial intelligence: implications for the future of work Am J Ind Med Howard J 917 926 62 2019 31436850
61 Introduction to artificial intelligence in medicine Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol Mintz Y Brodie R 73 81 28 2019 30810430
62 Artificial intelligence in medical imaging Magn Reson Imaging Gore JC 0 4 68 2020
63 Machine learning in oncology: methods, applications, and challenges JCO Clin Cancer Inform Bertsimas D Wiberg H 885 894 4 2020 33058693
64 Current applications and future impact of machine learning in radiology Radiology Choy G Khalilzadeh O Michalski M 318 328 288 2018 29944078
65 Deep learning in pharmacogenomics: from gene regulation to patient stratification Pharmacogenomics Kalinin AA Higgins GA Reamaroon N 629 650 19 2018 29697304
66 Deep learning Nature LeCun Y Bengio Y Hinton G 436 444 521 2015 26017442
67 Efficacy of real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal neoplasia in a randomized trial Gastroenterology Repici A Badalamenti M Maselli R 512 520 159 2020 32371116
68 Artificial intelligence for mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: current concepts and future perspectives Radiology Geras KJ Mann RM Moy L 246 259 293 2019 31549948
69 Artificial intelligence in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: the current status and future perspective Clin Endosc Milluzzo SM Cesaro P Grazioli LM Olivari N Spada C 329 339 54 2021 33434961
70 Precision medicine and melanoma: multi-omics approaches to monitoring the immunotherapy response Int J Mol Sci Valenti F Falcone I Ungania S 3837 22 2021 33917181
71 Tumor microenvironment: implications in melanoma resistance to targeted therapy and immunotherapy Cancers (Basel) Falcone I Conciatori F Bazzichetto C Ferretti G Cognetti F Ciuffreda L Milella M 2870 12 2020 33036192
72 A deep learning approach for predicting antidepressant response in major depression using clinical and genetic biomarkers Front Psychiatry Lin E Kuo PH Liu YL Yu YW Yang AC Tsai SJ 290 9 2018 30034349
73 Exploring CT texture parameters as predictive and response imaging biomarkers of survival in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab: a pilot study using a delta-radiomics approach Front Oncol Guerrisi A Russillo M Loi E 704607 11 2021 34692481
74 Melanoma detection by analysis of clinical images using convolutional neural network Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Nasr-Esfahani E Samavi S Karimi N Soroushmehr SM Jafari MH Ward K Najarian K 1373 1376 2016 2016 28268581
75 Neural network diagnosis of malignant melanoma from color images IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Ercal F Chawla A Stoecker WV Lee HC Moss RH 837 845 41 1994 7959811
76 Deep features to classify skin lesions IEEE 13th Int Symp Biomed Imaging Kawahara J BenTaieb A Hamarneh G 1397 1400 2016 2016 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7493528
77 Deepmole: deep neural networks for skin mole lesion classification IEEE Int Conf Image Process Pomponiu V Nejati H Cheung NM 2623 2627 2016 2016 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7532834
78 Classification of the clinical images for benign and malignant cutaneous tumors using a deep learning algorithm J Invest Dermatol Han SS Kim MS Lim W Park GH Park I Chang SE 1529 1538 138 2018 29428356
79 Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks Nature Esteva A Kuprel B Novoa RA Ko J Swetter SM Blau HM Thrun S 115 118 542 2017 28117445
80 Using deep learning for dermatologist-level detection of suspicious pigmented skin lesions from wide-field images Sci Transl Med Soenksen LR Kassis T Conover ST 0 13 2021
81 Characterizing the role of dermatologists in developing artificial intelligence for assessment of skin cancer J Am Acad Dermatol Zakhem GA Fakhoury JW Motosko CC Ho RS 1544 1556 85 2021 31972254
82 Deep learning, sparse coding, and SVM for melanoma recognition in dermoscopy images Machine Learning in Medical Imaging Codella N Cai J Abedini M 118 126 Cham Springer International Publishing 2015
83 A comparison of machine learning methods for the diagnosis of pigmented skin lesions J Biomed Inform Dreiseitl S Ohno-Machado L Kittler H Vinterbo S Billhardt H Binder M 28 36 34 2001 11376540
84 Results of the 2016 International Skin Imaging Collaboration International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging challenge: comparison of the accuracy of computer algorithms to dermatologists for the diagnosis of melanoma from dermoscopic images J Am Acad Dermatol Marchetti MA Codella NC Dusza SW 270 277 78 2018 28969863
85 Assessment of accuracy of an artificial intelligence algorithm to detect melanoma in images of skin lesions JAMA Netw Open Phillips M Marsden H Jaffe W 0 2 2019
86 Can artificial intelligence "hold" a dermoscope?-The evaluation of an artificial intelligence chatbot to translate the dermoscopic language Diagnostics (Basel) Karampinis E Toli O Georgopoulou KE Kampra E Spyridonidou C Roussaki Schulze AV Zafiriou E 1165 14 2024 38893694
87 Man against machine: diagnostic performance of a deep learning convolutional neural network for dermoscopic melanoma recognition in comparison to 58 dermatologists Ann Oncol Haenssle HA Fink C Schneiderbauer R 1836 1842 29 2018 29846502
88 Computer algorithms show potential for improving dermatologists' accuracy to diagnose cutaneous melanoma: results of the International Skin Imaging Collaboration 2017 J Am Acad Dermatol Marchetti MA Liopyris K Dusza SW 622 627 82 2020 31306724
89 Robustness of convolutional neural networks in recognition of pigmented skin lesions Eur J Cancer Maron RC Haggenmüller S von Kalle C 81 91 145 2021 33423009
90 Melanoma recognition by a deep learning convolutional neural network-performance in different melanoma subtypes and localisations Eur J Cancer Winkler JK Sies K Fink C 21 29 127 2020 31972395
91 Acral melanoma detection using a convolutional neural network for dermoscopy images PLoS One Yu C Yang S Kim W Jung J Chung KY Lee SW Oh B 0 13 2018
92 Augmented decision‐making for acral lentiginous melanoma detection using deep convolutional neural networks J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Lee S Chu YS Yoo SK 1842 1850 34 2020 31919901
93 Computerized dermatopathologic diagnosis J Am Acad Dermatol Potter B Ronan SG 119 131 17 1987 3301922
94 Review of the current state of whole slide imaging in pathology J Pathol Inform Pantanowitz L Valenstein PN Evans AJ 36 2 2011 21886892
95 Pathologist-level classification of histopathological melanoma images with deep neural networks Eur J Cancer Hekler A Utikal JS Enk AH 79 83 115 2019 31129383
96 Classification of melanocytic lesions in selected and whole-slide images via convolutional neural networks J Pathol Inform Hart SN Flotte W Norgan AP Shah KK Buchan ZR Mounajjed T Flotte TJ 5 10 2019 30972224
97 Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence for histologic melanoma recognition compared to 18 international expert pathologists J Am Acad Dermatol Brinker TJ Schmitt M Krieghoff-Henning EI 640 642 86 2022 33581189
98 Hypertext atlas of dermatopathology with expert system for epithelial tumors of the skin J Cutan Pathol Feit J Kempf W Jedlicková H Burg G 433 437 32 2005 15953378
99 An intelligent tutoring system for visual classification problem solving Artif Intell Med Crowley RS Medvedeva O 85 117 36 2006 16098717
100 A general architecture for intelligent tutoring of diagnostic classification problem solving AMIA Annu Symp Proc Crowley RS Medvedeva O 185 189 2003 2003 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14728159/ 14728159
101 Effect of a limited-enforcement intelligent tutoring system in dermatopathology on student errors, goals and solution paths Artif Intell Med Payne VL Medvedeva O Legowski E Castine M Tseytlin E Jukic D Crowley RS 175 197 47 2009 19782544
102 Evaluation of an intelligent tutoring system in pathology: effects of external representation on performance gains, metacognition, and acceptance J Am Med Inform Assoc Crowley RS Legowski E Medvedeva O Tseytlin E Roh E Jukic D 182 190 14 2007 17213494
103 Automated detection of heuristics and biases among pathologists in a computer-based system Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Crowley RS Legowski E Medvedeva O 343 363 18 2013 22618855
104 A natural language intelligent tutoring system for training pathologists: implementation and evaluation Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract El Saadawi GM Tseytlin E Legowski E 709 722 13 2008 17934789
105 ReportTutor-an intelligent tutoring system that uses a natural language interface AMIA Annu Symp Proc Crowley RS Tseytlin E Jukic D 171 175 2005 2005 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16779024/ 16779024
106 Skin cancer diagnostics with an all-inclusive smartphone application Symmetry Kalwa U Legner C Kong T 790 11 2019
107 A mobile augmented reality application for supporting real-time skin lesion analysis based on deep learning J Real-Time Image Process Francese R Frasca M Risi M 1247 1259 18 2021
108 The impact of patient clinical information on automated skin cancer detection Comput Biol Med Pacheco AGC Krohling RA 103545 116 2020 31760271
109 New AI-algorithms on smartphones to detect skin cancer in a clinical setting-a validation study PLoS One Kränke T Tripolt-Droschl K Röd L Hofmann-Wellenhof R Koppitz M Tripolt M 0 18 2023
110 mHealth app for risk assessment of pigmented and nonpigmented skin lesions—a study on sensitivity and specificity in detecting malignancy Telemed e-Health Thissen M Udrea A Hacking M von Braunmuehl T Ruzicka T 948 954 23 2017
111 Algorithm based smartphone apps to assess risk of skin cancer in adults: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies BMJ Freeman K Dinnes J Chuchu N 0 368 2020
112 Development of smartphone apps for skin cancer risk assessment: progress and promise JMIR Dermatol de Carvalho TM Noels E Wakkee M 0 2 2019
113 Association between surgical skin markings in dermoscopic images and diagnostic performance of a deep learning convolutional neural network for melanoma recognition JAMA Dermatol Winkler JK Fink C Toberer F 1135 1141 155 2019 31411641
114 Disparities in dermatology AI performance on a diverse, curated clinical image set Sci Adv Daneshjou R Vodrahalli K Novoa RA 0 8 2022
115 TrueImage: a machine learning algorithm to improve the quality of telehealth photos Pac Symp Biocomput Vodrahalli K Daneshjou R Novoa RA Chiou A Ko JM Zou J 220 231 26 2021 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33691019/ 33691019
116 Image quality issues in teledermatology: a comparative analysis of artificial intelligence solutions J Am Acad Dermatol Maier K Zaniolo L Marques O 240 242 87 2022 34384833
117 Artificial intelligence and clinical decision support: clinicians' perspectives on trust, trustworthiness, and liability Med Law Rev Jones C Thornton J Wyatt JC 501 520 31 2023 37218368
118 Legal and ethical consideration in artificial intelligence in healthcare: who takes responsibility? Front Surg Naik N Hameed BM Shetty DK 862322 9 2022 35360424
119 How medical AI devices are evaluated: limitations and recommendations from an analysis of FDA approvals Nat Med Wu E Wu K Daneshjou R Ouyang D Ho DE Zou J 582 584 27 2021 33820998
120 Patient perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence for skin cancer screening: a qualitative study JAMA Dermatol Nelson CA Pérez-Chada LM Creadore A 501 512 156 2020 32159733
121 Dermatologists' perspectives on artificial intelligence and augmented intelligence: a cross-sectional survey JAMA Dermatol Nelson CA Pachauri S Balk R Miller J Theunis R Ko JM Kovarik CL 871 874 157 2021 34037674
122 Benefits, limits, and risks of GPT-4 as an AI chatbot for medicine N Engl J Med Lee P Bubeck S Petro J 1233 1239 388 2023 36988602
123 Artificial intelligence and machine learning in clinical medicine, 2023 N Engl J Med Haug CJ Drazen JM 1201 1208 388 2023 36988595
124 Ethics of large language models in medicine and medical research Lancet Digit Health Li H Moon JT Purkayastha S 333 335 5 2023
125 A systematic review of barriers to data sharing in public health BMC Public Health van Panhuis WG Paul P Emerson C 1144 14 2014 25377061
126 Artificial intelligence in radiology Nat Rev Cancer Hosny A Parmar C Quackenbush J Schwartz LH Aerts HJ 500 510 18 2018 29777175
127 Deep learning in medicine-promise, progress, and challenges JAMA Intern Med Wang F Casalino LP Khullar D 293 294 179 2019 30556825
128 The shaky foundations of large language models and foundation models for electronic health records NPJ Digit Med Wornow M Xu Y Thapa R 135 6 2023 37516790
