Dermoscopy diagnosis of cancerous lesions utilizing dual deep learning algorithms via visual and audio (sonification) outputs: Laboratory and prospective observational studies.
Artificial intelligence
Deep learning
Dermoscopy
Melanoma
Skin cancer
Sonification
Telemedicine
Journal
EBioMedicine
ISSN: 2352-3964
Titre abrégé: EBioMedicine
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101647039
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
04
12
2018
revised:
23
12
2018
accepted:
11
01
2019
pubmed:
25
1
2019
medline:
27
6
2019
entrez:
25
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Early diagnosis of skin cancer lesions by dermoscopy, the gold standard in dermatological imaging, calls for a diagnostic upscale. The aim of the study was to improve the accuracy of dermoscopic skin cancer diagnosis through use of novel deep learning (DL) algorithms. An additional sonification-derived diagnostic layer was added to the visual classification to increase sensitivity. Two parallel studies were conducted: a laboratory retrospective study (LABS, n = 482 biopsies) and a non-interventional prospective observational study (OBS, n = 63 biopsies). A training data set of biopsy-verified reports, normal and cancerous skin lesions (n = 3954), were used to develop a DL classifier exploring visual features (System A). The outputs of the classifier were sonified, i.e. data conversion into sound (System B). Derived sound files were analyzed by a second machine learning classifier, either as raw audio (LABS, OBS) or following conversion into spectrograms (LABS) and by image analysis and human heuristics (OBS). The OBS criteria outcomes were System A specificity and System B sensitivity as raw sounds, spectrogram areas or heuristics. LABS employed dermoscopies, half benign half malignant, and compared the accuracy of Systems A and B. System A algorithm resulted in a ROC AUC of 0.976 (95% CI, 0.965-0.987). Secondary machine learning analysis of raw sound, FFT and Spectrogram ROC curves resulted in AUC's of 0.931 (95% CI 0.881-0.981), 0.90 (95% CI 0.838-0.963) and 0.988 (CI 95% 0.973-1.001), respectively. OBS analysis of raw sound dermoscopies by the secondary machine learning resulted in a ROC AUC of 0.819 (95% CI, 0.7956 to 0.8406). OBS image analysis of AUC for spectrograms displayed a ROC AUC of 0.808 (CI 95% 0.6945 To 0.9208). By applying a heuristic analysis of Systems A and B a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 91% were derived in the clinical study. Adding a second stage of processing, which includes a deep learning algorithm of sonification and heuristic inspection with machine learning, significantly improves diagnostic accuracy. A combined two-stage system is expected to assist clinical decisions and de-escalate the current trend of over-diagnosis of skin cancer lesions as pathological. FUND: Bostel Technologies. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03362138.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Early diagnosis of skin cancer lesions by dermoscopy, the gold standard in dermatological imaging, calls for a diagnostic upscale. The aim of the study was to improve the accuracy of dermoscopic skin cancer diagnosis through use of novel deep learning (DL) algorithms. An additional sonification-derived diagnostic layer was added to the visual classification to increase sensitivity.
METHODS
METHODS
Two parallel studies were conducted: a laboratory retrospective study (LABS, n = 482 biopsies) and a non-interventional prospective observational study (OBS, n = 63 biopsies). A training data set of biopsy-verified reports, normal and cancerous skin lesions (n = 3954), were used to develop a DL classifier exploring visual features (System A). The outputs of the classifier were sonified, i.e. data conversion into sound (System B). Derived sound files were analyzed by a second machine learning classifier, either as raw audio (LABS, OBS) or following conversion into spectrograms (LABS) and by image analysis and human heuristics (OBS). The OBS criteria outcomes were System A specificity and System B sensitivity as raw sounds, spectrogram areas or heuristics.
FINDINGS
RESULTS
LABS employed dermoscopies, half benign half malignant, and compared the accuracy of Systems A and B. System A algorithm resulted in a ROC AUC of 0.976 (95% CI, 0.965-0.987). Secondary machine learning analysis of raw sound, FFT and Spectrogram ROC curves resulted in AUC's of 0.931 (95% CI 0.881-0.981), 0.90 (95% CI 0.838-0.963) and 0.988 (CI 95% 0.973-1.001), respectively. OBS analysis of raw sound dermoscopies by the secondary machine learning resulted in a ROC AUC of 0.819 (95% CI, 0.7956 to 0.8406). OBS image analysis of AUC for spectrograms displayed a ROC AUC of 0.808 (CI 95% 0.6945 To 0.9208). By applying a heuristic analysis of Systems A and B a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 91% were derived in the clinical study.
INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSIONS
Adding a second stage of processing, which includes a deep learning algorithm of sonification and heuristic inspection with machine learning, significantly improves diagnostic accuracy. A combined two-stage system is expected to assist clinical decisions and de-escalate the current trend of over-diagnosis of skin cancer lesions as pathological. FUND: Bostel Technologies. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03362138.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30674442
pii: S2352-3964(19)30033-7
doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.01.028
pmc: PMC6413349
pii:
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03362138']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
176-183Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Références
Arch Dermatol. 2012 Aug;148(8):903-10
pubmed: 22911184
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 17;8(12):e82491
pubmed: 24358192
Br J Dermatol. 2014 Nov;171(5):1099-107
pubmed: 24841846
JAMA Dermatol. 2016 Jul 1;152(7):798-806
pubmed: 27074267
IEEE Trans Image Process. 2016 Aug;25(8):3919-30
pubmed: 27305676
JAMA Dermatol. 2016 Dec 1;152(12):1327-1334
pubmed: 27542070
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Jan;76(1):129-139.e10
pubmed: 27707591
J Invest Dermatol. 2017 Apr;137(4):905-909
pubmed: 27890785
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017 Jun;31(6):972-977
pubmed: 27896853
JAMA. 2016 Dec 13;316(22):2402-2410
pubmed: 27898976
Telemed J E Health. 2017 Jun;23(6):517-520
pubmed: 27929365
BMJ. 2017 Jun 28;357:j2813
pubmed: 28659278
Dermatol Clin. 2017 Oct;35(4):565-576
pubmed: 28886814
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2017 Jul;2017:2018-2021
pubmed: 29060292
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Apr;78(4):701-709.e1
pubmed: 29180093
J Invest Dermatol. 2018 Jul;138(7):1529-1538
pubmed: 29428356
Ann Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;29(8):1836-1842
pubmed: 29846502
J Invest Dermatol. 2018 Oct;138(10):2277-2279
pubmed: 29864435
Lancet. 2018 Sep 15;392(10151):971-984
pubmed: 30238891
Lancet. 2018 Dec 1;392(10162):2388-2396
pubmed: 30318264
JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Jan 1;155(1):58-65
pubmed: 30484822