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.
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