Comparative Analysis of AI Models for Atypical Pigmented Facial Lesion Diagnosis.

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q2 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Alessandra Cartocci, Alessio Luschi, Linda Tognetti, Elisa Cinotti, Francesca Farnetani, Aimilios Lallas, John Paoli, Caterina Longo, Elvira Moscarella, Danica Tiodorovic, Ignazio Stanganelli, Mariano Suppa, Emi Dika, Iris Zalaudek, Maria Antonietta Pizzichetta, Jean Luc Perrot, Gabriele Cevenini, Ernesto Iadanza, Giovanni Rubegni, Harald Kittler, Philipp Tschandl, Pietro Rubegni
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of AI Models for Atypical Pigmented Facial Lesion Diagnosis.","authors":"Alessandra Cartocci, Alessio Luschi, Linda Tognetti, Elisa Cinotti, Francesca Farnetani, Aimilios Lallas, John Paoli, Caterina Longo, Elvira Moscarella, Danica Tiodorovic, Ignazio Stanganelli, Mariano Suppa, Emi Dika, Iris Zalaudek, Maria Antonietta Pizzichetta, Jean Luc Perrot, Gabriele Cevenini, Ernesto Iadanza, Giovanni Rubegni, Harald Kittler, Philipp Tschandl, Pietro Rubegni","doi":"10.3390/bioengineering11101036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Diagnosing atypical pigmented facial lesions (aPFLs) is a challenging topic for dermatologists. Accurate diagnosis of these lesions is crucial for effective patient management, especially in dermatology, where visual assessment plays a central role. Incorrect diagnoses can result in mismanagement, delays in appropriate interventions, and potential harm. AI, however, holds the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy and provide reliable support to clinicians. This work aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of machine learning (logistic regression of lesion features and patient metadata) and deep learning (CNN analysis of images) models in dermoscopy diagnosis and the management of aPFLs. This study involved the analysis of 1197 dermoscopic images of facial lesions excised due to suspicious and histologically confirmed malignancy, classified into seven classes (lentigo maligna-LM; lentigo maligna melanoma-LMM; atypical nevi-AN; pigmented actinic keratosis-PAK; solar lentigo-SL; seborrheic keratosis-SK; and seborrheic lichenoid keratosis-SLK). Image samples were collected through the Integrated Dermoscopy Score (iDScore) project. The statistical analysis of the dataset shows that the patients mean age was 65.5 ± 14.2, and the gender was equally distributed (580 males-48.5%; 617 females-51.5%). A total of 41.7% of the sample constituted malignant lesions (LM and LMM). Meanwhile, the benign lesions were mainly PAK (19.3%), followed by SL (22.2%), AN (10.4%), SK (4.0%), and SLK (2.3%). The lesions were mainly localised in the cheek and nose areas. A stratified analysis of the assessment provided by the enrolled dermatologists was also performed, resulting in 2445 evaluations of the 1197 images (2.1 evaluations per image on average). The physicians demonstrated higher accuracy in differentiating between malignant and benign lesions (71.2%) than in distinguishing between the seven specific diagnoses across all the images (42.9%). The logistic regression model obtained a precision of 39.1%, a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 33.9%, and an accuracy of 53.6% on the test set, while the CNN model showed lower sensitivity (58.2%) and higher precision (47.0%), specificity (90.8%), and accuracy (59.5%) for melanoma diagnosis. This research demonstrates how AI can enhance the diagnostic accuracy in complex dermatological cases like aPFLs by integrating AI models with clinical data and evaluating different diagnostic approaches, paving the way for more precise and scalable AI applications in dermatology, showing their critical role in improving patient management and the outcomes in dermatology.</p>","PeriodicalId":8874,"journal":{"name":"Bioengineering","volume":"11 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11504969/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioengineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11101036","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Diagnosing atypical pigmented facial lesions (aPFLs) is a challenging topic for dermatologists. Accurate diagnosis of these lesions is crucial for effective patient management, especially in dermatology, where visual assessment plays a central role. Incorrect diagnoses can result in mismanagement, delays in appropriate interventions, and potential harm. AI, however, holds the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy and provide reliable support to clinicians. This work aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of machine learning (logistic regression of lesion features and patient metadata) and deep learning (CNN analysis of images) models in dermoscopy diagnosis and the management of aPFLs. This study involved the analysis of 1197 dermoscopic images of facial lesions excised due to suspicious and histologically confirmed malignancy, classified into seven classes (lentigo maligna-LM; lentigo maligna melanoma-LMM; atypical nevi-AN; pigmented actinic keratosis-PAK; solar lentigo-SL; seborrheic keratosis-SK; and seborrheic lichenoid keratosis-SLK). Image samples were collected through the Integrated Dermoscopy Score (iDScore) project. The statistical analysis of the dataset shows that the patients mean age was 65.5 ± 14.2, and the gender was equally distributed (580 males-48.5%; 617 females-51.5%). A total of 41.7% of the sample constituted malignant lesions (LM and LMM). Meanwhile, the benign lesions were mainly PAK (19.3%), followed by SL (22.2%), AN (10.4%), SK (4.0%), and SLK (2.3%). The lesions were mainly localised in the cheek and nose areas. A stratified analysis of the assessment provided by the enrolled dermatologists was also performed, resulting in 2445 evaluations of the 1197 images (2.1 evaluations per image on average). The physicians demonstrated higher accuracy in differentiating between malignant and benign lesions (71.2%) than in distinguishing between the seven specific diagnoses across all the images (42.9%). The logistic regression model obtained a precision of 39.1%, a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 33.9%, and an accuracy of 53.6% on the test set, while the CNN model showed lower sensitivity (58.2%) and higher precision (47.0%), specificity (90.8%), and accuracy (59.5%) for melanoma diagnosis. This research demonstrates how AI can enhance the diagnostic accuracy in complex dermatological cases like aPFLs by integrating AI models with clinical data and evaluating different diagnostic approaches, paving the way for more precise and scalable AI applications in dermatology, showing their critical role in improving patient management and the outcomes in dermatology.

用于面部非典型色素病变诊断的人工智能模型对比分析
对皮肤科医生来说,诊断面部非典型色素性病变(aPFLs)是一个具有挑战性的课题。准确诊断这些病变对于有效管理患者至关重要,尤其是在皮肤科,视觉评估在其中发挥着核心作用。不正确的诊断会导致管理不善、适当干预的延误以及潜在的伤害。然而,人工智能具有提高诊断准确性并为临床医生提供可靠支持的潜力。这项工作旨在评估和比较机器学习(病变特征和患者元数据的逻辑回归)和深度学习(图像的 CNN 分析)模型在皮肤镜检查诊断和 aPFLs 管理中的有效性。本研究分析了 1197 张皮肤镜图像,这些图像是因可疑和组织学证实的恶性肿瘤而切除的面部病变,分为七类(恶性肿瘤-LM;恶性黑色素瘤-LMM;非典型痣-AN;色素性光化性角化病-PAK;日光性皮肤病-SL;脂溢性角化病-SK;脂溢性苔藓样角化病-SLK)。图像样本是通过皮肤镜综合评分(iDScore)项目收集的。数据集的统计分析显示,患者的平均年龄为(65.5 ± 14.2)岁,性别分布平均(580 名男性-48.5%;617 名女性-51.5%)。41.7%的样本为恶性病变(LM 和 LMM)。与此同时,良性病变主要是 PAK(19.3%),其次是 SL(22.2%)、AN(10.4%)、SK(4.0%)和 SLK(2.3%)。病变主要集中在脸颊和鼻子部位。我们还对入选的皮肤科医生提供的评估进行了分层分析,结果是对 1197 张图像进行了 2445 次评估(平均每张图像 2.1 次评估)。医生们区分恶性和良性病变的准确率(71.2%)高于区分所有图像中七个特定诊断的准确率(42.9%)。逻辑回归模型在测试集上的精确度为 39.1%,灵敏度为 100%,特异度为 33.9%,准确度为 53.6%,而 CNN 模型在黑色素瘤诊断方面的灵敏度较低(58.2%),精确度(47.0%)、特异度(90.8%)和准确度(59.5%)较高。这项研究展示了人工智能如何通过将人工智能模型与临床数据相结合并评估不同的诊断方法来提高复杂皮肤病病例(如 aPFLs)的诊断准确性,为更精确、可扩展的人工智能在皮肤病学中的应用铺平了道路,显示了人工智能在改善患者管理和皮肤病学治疗效果方面的关键作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bioengineering
Bioengineering Chemical Engineering-Bioengineering
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
8.70%
发文量
661
期刊介绍: Aims Bioengineering (ISSN 2306-5354) provides an advanced forum for the science and technology of bioengineering. It publishes original research papers, comprehensive reviews, communications and case reports. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. All aspects of bioengineering are welcomed from theoretical concepts to education and applications. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. There are, in addition, four key features of this Journal: ● We are introducing a new concept in scientific and technical publications “The Translational Case Report in Bioengineering”. It is a descriptive explanatory analysis of a transformative or translational event. Understanding that the goal of bioengineering scholarship is to advance towards a transformative or clinical solution to an identified transformative/clinical need, the translational case report is used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles that may guide other similar transformative/translational undertakings. ● Manuscripts regarding research proposals and research ideas will be particularly welcomed. ● Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material. ● We also accept manuscripts communicating to a broader audience with regard to research projects financed with public funds. Scope ● Bionics and biological cybernetics: implantology; bio–abio interfaces ● Bioelectronics: wearable electronics; implantable electronics; “more than Moore” electronics; bioelectronics devices ● Bioprocess and biosystems engineering and applications: bioprocess design; biocatalysis; bioseparation and bioreactors; bioinformatics; bioenergy; etc. ● Biomolecular, cellular and tissue engineering and applications: tissue engineering; chromosome engineering; embryo engineering; cellular, molecular and synthetic biology; metabolic engineering; bio-nanotechnology; micro/nano technologies; genetic engineering; transgenic technology ● Biomedical engineering and applications: biomechatronics; biomedical electronics; biomechanics; biomaterials; biomimetics; biomedical diagnostics; biomedical therapy; biomedical devices; sensors and circuits; biomedical imaging and medical information systems; implants and regenerative medicine; neurotechnology; clinical engineering; rehabilitation engineering ● Biochemical engineering and applications: metabolic pathway engineering; modeling and simulation ● Translational bioengineering
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信