Accuracy of Computer-Aided Diagnosis of Melanoma: A Meta-analysis.
Journal
JAMA dermatology
ISSN: 2168-6084
Titre abrégé: JAMA Dermatol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101589530
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2019
01 Nov 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
20
6
2019
medline:
20
6
2019
entrez:
20
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The recent advances in the field of machine learning have raised expectations that computer-aided diagnosis will become the standard for the diagnosis of melanoma. To critically review the current literature and compare the diagnostic accuracy of computer-aided diagnosis with that of human experts. The MEDLINE, arXiv, and PubMed Central databases were searched to identify eligible studies published between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2018. Studies that reported on the accuracy of automated systems for melanoma were selected. Search terms included melanoma, diagnosis, detection, computer aided, and artificial intelligence. Evaluation of the risk of bias was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool, and quality assessment was based on predefined criteria. Data were analyzed from February 1 to March 10, 2019. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were the primary outcomes. The literature search yielded 1694 potentially eligible studies, of which 132 were included and 70 offered sufficient information for a quantitative analysis. Most studies came from the field of computer science. Prospective clinical studies were rare. Combining the results for automated systems gave a melanoma sensitivity of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.80) and a specificity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.88). Sensitivity was lower in studies that used independent test sets than in those that did not (0.51; 95% CI, 0.34-0.69 vs 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.86; P < .001); however, the specificity was similar (0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.91 vs 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.88; P = .67). In comparison with dermatologists' diagnosis, computer-aided diagnosis showed similar sensitivities and a 10 percentage points lower specificity, but the difference was not statistically significant. Studies were heterogeneous and substantial risk of bias was found in all but 4 of the 70 studies included in the quantitative analysis. Although the accuracy of computer-aided diagnosis for melanoma detection is comparable to that of experts, the real-world applicability of these systems is unknown and potentially limited owing to overfitting and the risk of bias of the studies at hand.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31215969
pii: 2736374
doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.1375
pmc: PMC6584889
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1291-1299Références
BMC Dermatol. 2005 Jul 06;5:8
pubmed: 16000171
Biomed Opt Express. 2013 Apr 1;4(4):514-9
pubmed: 23577286
Sensors (Basel). 2018 Feb 11;18(2):
pubmed: 29439500
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2018 Apr 09;:
pubmed: 29993994
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Oct;58(10):982-90
pubmed: 16168343
BMC Cancer. 2018 Jun 5;18(1):638
pubmed: 29871593
Melanoma Res. 2009 Jun;19(3):180-4
pubmed: 19369900
Arch Dermatol. 2003 Mar;139(3):361-7; discussion 366
pubmed: 12622631
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Feb;78(2):270-277.e1
pubmed: 28969863
Artif Intell Med. 2003 Jan;27(1):29-44
pubmed: 12473390
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2015 Aug;2015:2653-6
pubmed: 26736837
Exp Dermatol. 2017 Jul;26(7):615-618
pubmed: 27783441
JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Jan 1;155(1):58-65
pubmed: 30484822
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2017 Apr;36(4):994-1004
pubmed: 28026754
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 May;78(5):927-934.e6
pubmed: 29678380
Eur J Dermatol. 2014 Jul-Aug;24(4):477-81
pubmed: 24721784
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2010;2010:6130-3
pubmed: 21097141
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012;2012:4402-5
pubmed: 23366903
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014;2014:6455-8
pubmed: 25571474
BMC Dermatol. 2010 Aug 13;10:5
pubmed: 20707921
Melanoma Res. 2000 Dec;10(6):556-61
pubmed: 11198477
Br J Dermatol. 2018 Aug;179(2):478-485
pubmed: 29569229
J Med Signals Sens. 2018 Jul-Sep;8(3):184-194
pubmed: 30181967
Dermatol Surg. 2010 Dec;36(12):1979-86
pubmed: 21070464
IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2012 Nov;16(6):1239-52
pubmed: 22893445
Exp Dermatol. 2018 Nov;27(11):1261-1267
pubmed: 30187575
Int J Med Inform. 2017 Sep;105:1-10
pubmed: 28750902
JAMA Dermatol. 2013 Apr;149(4):422-6
pubmed: 23325302
Int J Biomed Imaging. 2010;2010:621357
pubmed: 20300598
Nature. 2017 Feb 2;542(7639):115-118
pubmed: 28117445
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
Br J Dermatol. 2019 Jul;181(1):155-165
pubmed: 30207594
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:8934242
pubmed: 26885520
Int J Dermatol. 2006 Apr;45(4):402-10
pubmed: 16650167
Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2005 Jun;29(4):287-96
pubmed: 15890256
PLoS One. 2018 Mar 7;13(3):e0193321
pubmed: 29513718
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2019 Mar;23(2):547-559
pubmed: 29994788
Skin Res Technol. 2010 Feb;16(1):85-97
pubmed: 20384887
J Med Signals Sens. 2014 Oct;4(4):281-90
pubmed: 25426432
Skin Res Technol. 2007 Feb;13(1):62-72
pubmed: 17250534
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005 Sep;116(3):782-90
pubmed: 16141816
JAMA. 2018 Jul 3;320(1):27-28
pubmed: 29813156
Exp Dermatol. 2010 Sep;19(9):830-5
pubmed: 20629732
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:3180-3
pubmed: 22255015
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Nov;177(5):1432-1438
pubmed: 28421597
Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2018 May;34(5):e2953
pubmed: 29266819
Dermatology. 2004;208(1):21-6
pubmed: 14730232
J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2017 Apr;15(4):414-419
pubmed: 28332777
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2015 Feb;118(2):124-33
pubmed: 25540998
Melanoma Res. 2015 Dec;25(6):537-42
pubmed: 26426763
Br J Dermatol. 2014 Nov;171(5):1099-107
pubmed: 24841846
Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:579282
pubmed: 26693486
Phys Med Biol. 2015 May 7;60(9):3415-31
pubmed: 25856087
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2017 Jul;2017:4281-4284
pubmed: 29060843
Sensors (Basel). 2018 Aug 04;18(8):
pubmed: 30081540
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2015 Oct;53(10):961-74
pubmed: 25947095
Ann Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;29(8):1836-1842
pubmed: 29846502