Skin cancer app fails to identify rare, aggressive cancers

Skin cancer app fails to identify rare, aggressive cancers

(HealthDay)—A direct-to-consumer machine learning model for detecting skin cancers may not adequately recognize rare, but aggressive, skin cancers, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, held virtually from Sept. 29 to Oct 2.

Lloyd Steele, M.B.Ch.B., from the University of London, and colleagues assessed the performance of a machine learning model for Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) and amelanotic melanoma. The performance of a direct-to-consumer model, which is available in Europe as a certified , was assessed using a set of images that included 28 MCCs, 35 amelanotic melanomas, 28 seborrheic keratoses, and 25 hemangiomas.

The researchers found that the direct-to-consumer app incorrectly classified five of 28 MCCs (17.9 percent) and seven of 35 amelanotic melanomas (22.9 percent) as low risk. Nearly two-thirds of benign lesions (62.2 percent) were classified as high risk. The model's sensitivity for detecting malignancy was 79.4 percent, with a specificity of 37.7 percent.

"In order to improve, machine learning evaluations should consider the spectrum of diseases that will be seen in practice," Steele said in a statement. "At the moment, most of the performance of those models is driven by the imaging data available, which is particularly scarce when it comes to rare ."


Explore further

Pale melanomas masked by albino gene

More information: More Information

Copyright © 2021 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Citation: Skin cancer app fails to identify rare, aggressive cancers (2021, October 14) retrieved 19 October 2021 from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-10-skin-cancer-app-rare-aggressive.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
5 shares

Feedback to editors