Dataset Information

Improving Skin cancer Management with ARTificial Intelligence (SMARTI): protocol for a preintervention/postintervention trial of an artificial intelligence system used as a diagnostic aid for skin cancer management in a specialist dermatology setting.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) can diagnose skin cancers with impressive accuracy in experimental settings, however, their performance in the real-world clinical setting, including comparison to teledermatology services, has not been validated in prospective clinical studies.

Methods and analysis

Participants will be recruited from dermatology clinics at the Alfred Hospital and Skin Health Institute, Melbourne. Skin lesions will be imaged using a proprietary dermoscopic camera. The artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm, a CNN developed by MoleMap Ltd and Monash eResearch, classifies lesions as benign, malignant or uncertain. This is a preintervention/postintervention study. In the preintervention period, treating doctors are blinded to AI lesion assessment. In the postintervention period, treating doctors review the AI lesion assessment in real time, and have the opportunity to then change their diagnosis and management. Any skin lesions of concern and at least two benign lesions will be selected for imaging. Each participant's lesions will be examined by a registrar, the treating consultant dermatologist and later by a teledermatologist. At the conclusion of the preintervention period, the safety of the AI algorithm will be evaluated in a primary analysis by measuring its sensitivity, specificity and agreement with histopathology where available, or the treating consultant dermatologists' classification. At trial completion, AI classifications will be compared with those of the teledermatologist, registrar, treating dermatologist and histopathology. The impact of the AI algorithm on diagnostic and management decisions will be evaluated by: (1) comparing the initial management decision of the registrar with their AI-assisted decision and (2) comparing the benign to malignant ratio (for lesions biopsied) between the preintervention and postintervention periods.

Ethics and dissemination

Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) approval received from the Alfred Hospital Ethics Committee on 14 February 2019 (HREC/48865/Alfred-2018). Findings from this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, non-peer reviewed media and conferences.

Trial registration number

NCT04040114.

SUBMITTER: Felmingham C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8728443 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSkin cancer is the most common cancer type affecting humans. Traditional skin cancer diagnosis methods are costly, require a professional physician, and take time. Hence, to aid in diagnosing skin cancer, artificial intelligence (AI) tools are being used, including shallow and deep machine learning-based methodologies that are trained to detect and classify skin cancer using computer algorithms and deep neural networks.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to identify and group the different types of AI-based technologies used to detect and classify skin cancer. The study also examined the reliability of the selected papers by studying the correlation between the data set size and the number of diagnostic classes with the performance metrics used to evaluate the models.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search for papers using Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Xplore, Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library (ACM DL), and Ovid MEDLINE databases following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The studies included in this scoping review had to fulfill several selection criteria: being specifically about skin cancer, detecting or classifying skin cancer, and using AI technologies. Study selection and data extraction were independently conducted by two reviewers. Extracted data were narratively synthesized, where studies were grouped based on the diagnostic AI techniques and their evaluation metrics.ResultsWe retrieved 906 papers from the 3 databases, of which 53 were eligible for this review. Shallow AI-based techniques were used in 14 studies, and deep AI-based techniques were used in 39 studies. The studies used up to 11 evaluation metrics to assess the proposed models, where 39 studies used accuracy as the primary evaluation metric. Overall, studies that used smaller data sets reported higher accuracy.ConclusionsThis paper examined multiple AI-based skin cancer detection models. However, a direct comparison between methods was hindered by the varied use of different evaluation metrics and image types. Performance scores were affected by factors such as data set size, number of diagnostic classes, and techniques. Hence, the reliability of shallow and deep models with higher accuracy scores was questionable since they were trained and tested on relatively small data sets of a few diagnostic classes.

Project description:Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promise in numerous experimental studies, particularly in skin cancer diagnostics. Translation of these findings into the clinic is the logical next step. This translation can only be successful if patients' concerns and questions are addressed suitably. We therefore conducted a survey to evaluate the patients' view of artificial intelligence in melanoma diagnostics in Germany, with a particular focus on patients with a history of melanoma. Participants and Methods: A web-based questionnaire was designed using LimeSurvey, sent by e-mail to university hospitals and melanoma support groups and advertised on social media. The anonymous questionnaire evaluated patients' expectations and concerns toward artificial intelligence in general as well as their attitudes toward different application scenarios. Descriptive analysis was performed with expression of categorical variables as percentages and 95% confidence intervals. Statistical tests were performed to investigate associations between sociodemographic data and selected items of the questionnaire. Results: 298 individuals (154 with a melanoma diagnosis, 143 without) responded to the questionnaire. About 94% [95% CI = 0.91-0.97] of respondents supported the use of artificial intelligence in medical approaches. 88% [95% CI = 0.85-0.92] would even make their own health data anonymously available for the further development of AI-based applications in medicine. Only 41% [95% CI = 0.35-0.46] of respondents were amenable to the use of artificial intelligence as stand-alone system, 94% [95% CI = 0.92-0.97] to its use as assistance system for physicians. In sub-group analyses, only minor differences were detectable. Respondents with a previous history of melanoma were more amenable to the use of AI applications for early detection even at home. They would prefer an application scenario where physician and AI classify the lesions independently. With respect to AI-based applications in medicine, patients were concerned about insufficient data protection, impersonality and susceptibility to errors, but expected faster, more precise and unbiased diagnostics, less diagnostic errors and support for physicians. Conclusions: The vast majority of participants exhibited a positive attitude toward the use of artificial intelligence in melanoma diagnostics, especially as an assistance system.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The present study aimed to evaluate the iLead intervention and to investigate whether or not transfer of training can be supported by contextualising the intervention (recruiting all managers from one branch of the organisation while focusing on one implementation case, as well as training senior management). DESIGN:A pre-evaluation-postevaluation design was applied using mixed methods with process and effect surveys and interviews to measure the effects on three levels. SETTING:Healthcare managers from Stockholm's regional healthcare organisation were invited to the training. PARTICIPANTS:52 managers participated in the iLead intervention. Group 1 consisted of 21 managers from different organisations and with different implementation cases. Group 2, representing the contextualised group, consisted of 31 managers from the same organisation, working on the same implementation case, where senior management also received training. INTERVENTION:iLead is an intervention where healthcare managers are trained in implementation leadership based on the full-range leadership model. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Reactions, knowledge and implementation leadership are measured. RESULTS:Quantitative and qualitative analyses indicate that iLead was perceived to be of high quality and capable of increasing participants' knowledge. Mixed effects were found regarding changes in behaviours. The contextualisation did not have a boosting effect on behaviour change. Hence, group 2 did not increase its active implementation leadership in comparison with group 1. CONCLUSIONS:iLead introduces a new approach to how implementation leadership can be trained when knowledge of effective leadership for implementations is combined with findings on the importance of environmental factors for the transfer of training. Even though managers reported general positive effects, transfer was not facilitated through the contextualisation of the intervention. There is a need to further develop approaches to help participants subsequently apply the learnt skills in their work environment.