Accuracy of Computer-Aided Diagnosis of Melanoma : A Meta-analysis

Abstract

What is the accuracy of computer-aided diagnosis of melanoma and how does it translate to clinical practice? In this meta-analysis of 70 studies, the accuracy of computer-aided diagnosis is comparable to that of human experts. However, current studies are heterogeneous and most deviate significantly from real-world scenarios and are prone to biases. Although computer-aided diagnosis for melanoma appears to be accurate according to the included studies, more standardized and realistic study settings are required to explore its full potential in clinical practice. 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. This meta-analysis evaluates the accuracy of computerized systems in the diagnosis of melanoma in patients with skin lesions.