ABSTRACT
Automated machine learning approaches to skin lesion diagnosis from images are approaching dermatologist-level performance. However, current machine learning approaches that suggest management decisions rely on predicting the underlying skin condition to infer a management decision without considering the variability of management decisions that may exist within a single condition. We present the first work to explore image-based prediction of clinical management decisions directly without explicitly predicting the diagnosis. In particular, we use clinical and dermoscopic images of skin lesions along with patient metadata from the Interactive Atlas of Dermoscopy dataset (1,011 cases; 20 disease labels; 3 management decisions) and demonstrate that predicting management labels directly is more accurate than predicting the diagnosis and then inferring the management decision (13.73 ± 3.93% and 6.59 ± 2.86% improvement in overall accuracy and AUROC respectively), statistically significant at p < 0.001. Directly predicting management decisions also considerably reduces the over-excision rate as compared to management decisions inferred from diagnosis predictions (24.56% fewer cases wrongly predicted to be excised). Furthermore, we show that training a model to also simultaneously predict the seven-point criteria and the diagnosis of skin lesions yields an even higher accuracy (improvements of 4.68 ± 1.89% and 2.24 ± 2.04% in overall accuracy and AUROC respectively) of management predictions. Finally, we demonstrate our model’s generalizability by evaluating on the publicly available MClass-D dataset and show that our model agrees with the clinical management recommendations of 157 dermatologists as much as they agree amongst each other.
Competing Interest Statement
G.H. serves as a Scientific Advisor to Triage Technologies Inc., Toronto, Canada, where J.K. and G.H. are minor shareholders (< 5%). Triage Technologies Inc. offers a tool to detect skin conditions from images that was not a part of the presented experiments. K.A. has no competing interest to declare.
Funding Statement
K.A. is funded by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) grant RGPIN 06795 through a research assistantship.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This research was conducted on publicly available datasets, and is therefore exempt from Research Ethics Board review under the Tri-Council (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and Canadian Institutes of Health Research) Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans Article 2.2 (https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/tcps2-eptc2_2018_chapter2-chapitre2.html).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Both the datasets used in this article have been publicly released.
