Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Systematic review and meta-analysis of AI for melanoma risk assessment in pigmented skin lesions

Systematic review and meta-analysis of AI for melanoma risk assessment in pigmented skin lesions
Photo by Accuray / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Consider AI as a complementary tool for melanoma risk assessment, noting limited evidence for AI-assisted clinicians.

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy for malignancy risk assessment in pigmented skin lesions, including melanoma. The scope covered 17 diagnostic arms: 10 dermoscopy arms, 6 AI-alone arms, and 1 AI-assisted clinician arm, evaluated in real-world clinical settings. The authors synthesized pooled sensitivity and specificity for each modality compared to standard dermoscopy.

For dermoscopy, pooled sensitivity was 0.773 (95% CI, 0.648-0.863) and specificity was 0.793 (95% CI, 0.673-0.877). For standalone AI, pooled sensitivity was 0.757 (95% CI, 0.428-0.928) and specificity was 0.859 (95% CI, 0.619-0.958). For the single AI-assisted clinician arm, sensitivity was 1.000 and specificity was 0.837, though confidence intervals were not reported.

The authors noted that heterogeneity in AI performance was driven almost entirely by threshold effects rather than by differences in inherent model capacity. They also highlighted that more evidence is needed for AI-assisted clinicians. Limitations include the small number of AI-assisted clinician arms and the lack of reported follow-up duration.

Practice relevance is restrained; the authors suggest AI should be viewed as a complementary decision-support tool rather than a replacement for dermoscopic evaluation. The evidence base is early and incomplete, and clinicians should interpret findings with caution.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedMay 2026
View Original 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.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.