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 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JID Innovations
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.0%
2
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.8%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.7%
4
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.7%
5
Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
6
European Journal of Cancer
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.5%
7
British Journal of Ophthalmology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
8
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 27%
4.0%
9
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.0%
10
British Journal of Dermatology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
11
Frontiers in Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.8%
12
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
13
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
14
Journal of Investigative Dermatology
49 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
15
Experimental Dermatology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
16
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
17
Annals of Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
18
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.3%
19
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
22 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
20
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
21
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
466 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
22
eClinicalMedicine
77 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
23
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
24
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.0%
25
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
26
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.0%
27
Translational Vision Science & Technology
39 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
28
Ophthalmology Science
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
29
Eye
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
30
JMIR Research Protocols
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%