# Using Multiple Dermoscopic Photographs of One Lesion Improves Melanoma Classification via Deep Learning: A Prognostic Diagnostic Accuracy Study

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02800 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.02800/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 31 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 5 Jun 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.01703/) (2019)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.02530/) (2019)
- [Unmasking Clever Hans Predictors and Assessing What Machines Really Learn](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.10178/) (2019)
- [Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.02114/) (2020)
- [BCN20000: Dermoscopic Lesions in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.02288/) (2019)
- [Why do deep convolutional networks generalize so poorly to small image transformations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.12177/) (2018)
- [fastai: A Layered API for Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.04688/) (2020)
- [Strike (with) a Pose: Neural Networks Are Easily Fooled by Strange Poses of Familiar Objects](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.11553/) (2018)
- [Better Aggregation in Test-Time Augmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.11156/) (2020)
- [Data Augmentation for Skin Lesion Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.01442/) (2018)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Clinical Melanoma Diagnosis with Artificial Intelligence: Insights from a Prospective Multicenter Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.14193/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Background: Convolutional neural network (CNN)-based melanoma classifiers face several challenges that limit their usefulness in clinical practice. Objective: To investigate the impact of multiple real-world dermoscopic views of a single lesion of interest on a CNN-based melanoma classifier. Methods: This study evaluated 656 suspected melanoma lesions. Classifier performance was measured using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), expected calibration error (ECE) and maximum confidence change (MCC) for (I) a single-view scenario, (II) a multiview scenario using multiple artificially modified images per lesion and (III) a multiview scenario with multiple real-world images per lesion. Results: The multiview approach with real-world images significantly increased the AUROC from 0.905 (95% CI, 0.879-0.929) in the single-view approach to 0.930 (95% CI, 0.909-0.951). ECE and MCC also improved significantly from 0.131 (95% CI, 0.105-0.159) to 0.072 (95% CI: 0.052-0.093) and from 0.149 (95% CI, 0.125-0.171) to 0.115 (95% CI: 0.099-0.131), respectively. Comparing multiview real-world to artificially modified images showed comparable diagnostic accuracy and uncertainty estimation, but significantly worse robustness for the latter. Conclusion: Using multiple real-world images is an inexpensive method to positively impact the performance of a CNN-based melanoma classifier.