TY - JOUR T1 - Retrospective Assessment of Deep Neural Networks for Skin Tumor Diagnosis JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2019.12.12.19014647 SP - 2019.12.12.19014647 AU - Seung Seog Han AU - Ik Jun Moon AU - Jung-Im Na AU - Myoung Shin Kim AU - Gyeong Hun Park AU - Seong Hwan Kim AU - Kiwon Kim AU - Ju Hee Lee AU - Sung Eun Chang Y1 - 2019/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/12/15/2019.12.12.19014647.abstract N2 - BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to validate the performance of algorithm (http://rcnn.modelderm.com) for the diagnosis of benign and malignant skin tumors.METHODS With external validation dataset (43 disorders; 40,331 clinical images from 10,426 patients; January 1, 2008 – March 31, 2019), we compared the prediction of algorithm with the clinical diagnosis of 65 attending physicians at the time of biopsy request.RESULTS For binary-task classification of determining malignancy, the AUC of the algorithm was 0.863(95% CI 0.852– 0.875) with unprocessed clinical photographs. The sensitivity/specificity of the algorithm at the predefined high-sensitivity and high-specificity threshold were 79.1%(76.9–81.4)/76.9%(76.1–77.8) and 62.7%(59.9– 65.5)/90.0%(89.4–90.6), respectively. The sensitivity/specificity calculated by the clinical diagnosis of attending physicians were 88.1%/83.8%(Top-3) and 70.2%/95.6%(Top-1), which were superior to those of algorithm.For multi-task classification, the mean Top-1,2,3 accuracies of the algorithm were 42.6±20.7%, 56.1±22.8%, 61.9±22.9%, and those of clinical diagnosis were 65.4±17.7%, 73.9±16.6%, 74.7±16.6%, respectively.CONCLUSIONS The performance of the algorithm was lower than that of dermatologists in real practice. To expand data relevancy, not only image information, but also clinical information should be integrated for more accurate prediction.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNoneAuthor DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as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).YesI 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.YesThe images used to test the neural networks described in the manuscript are subject to privacy regulations and cannot be made available in totality. The test subset may be available upon a reasonable request and an approval of IRB of the originating university hospital.AUCarea under the curveCNNconvolutional neural networkPPVpositive predictive valueROC curvereceiver operating characteristic curveRCNNregion-based convolutional neural networkNPVnegative predictive value ER -