Back

Can Artificial Intelligence Match Dermoscopy in Melanoma Detection? Evidence from a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Pigmented Skin Lesions

Tang, H.; Zhu, Y.; Diao, M.

2026-05-20 dermatology
10.64898/2026.05.15.26353363 medRxiv
Show abstract

Accurate risk stratification of pigmented skin lesions is critical for early melanoma detection and for reducing unnecessary excisions. Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly applied to dermoscopic image analysis, but its diagnostic performance relative to standard dermoscopy in real-world clinical settings remains uncertain. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective clinical studies directly comparing AI alone, dermoscopy, and AI-assisted clinicians for malignancy risk assessment of pigmented skin lesions. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to January 2026. Ten studies with 17 diagnostic arms (10 dermoscopy arms, 6 AI-alone arms, and 1 AI-assisted clinician arm) were included. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.773 (95% CI, 0.648-0.863) and 0.793 (95% CI, 0.673-0.877) for dermoscopy, and 0.757 (95% CI, 0.428-0.928) and 0.859 (95% CI, 0.619-0.958) for standalone AI. Summary ROC curves showed overlapping performance, indicating that autonomous AI is broadly comparable to dermoscopy but does not demonstrate a consistent advantage. Heterogeneity in AI performance was driven almost entirely by threshold effects rather than by differences in inherent model capacity. AI-assisted clinicians showed promising results (sensitivity 1.000, specificity 0.837) in a single study, but more evidence is needed. Our findings suggest that, at present, AI should be viewed as a complementary decision-support tool rather than a replacement for dermoscopic evaluation. The study provides valuable evidence for clinicians, guideline developers, and researchers working on AI integration into melanoma diagnostic pathways.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.2%
2
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.4%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 7%
9.4%
4
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.0%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.6%
50% of probability mass above
6
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
7
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.1%
8
British Journal of Ophthalmology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
9
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 14%
1.9%
10
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
11
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
12
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.4%
13
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
14
Ophthalmology Science
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
15
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
16
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.0%
17
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
18
The American Journal of Pathology
31 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
19
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
20
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
21
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 52%
0.9%
22
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
21 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
23
Experimental Eye Research
30 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
24
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
25
Experimental Dermatology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
26
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
28
Journal of Vision
92 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
29
Blood Advances
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
30
Journal of Investigative Dermatology
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%