AI-Driven Skin Cancer Diagnosis: Grad-CAM and Expert Annotations for Enhanced Interpretability
Authors:
Iván Matas,
Carmen Serrano,
Francisca Silva,
Amalia Serrano,
Tomás Toledo-Pastrana,
Begoña Acha
Abstract:
An AI tool has been developed to provide interpretable support for the diagnosis of BCC via teledermatology, thus speeding up referrals and optimizing resource utilization. The interpretability is provided in two ways: on the one hand, the main BCC dermoscopic patterns are found in the image to justify the BCC/Non BCC classification. Secondly, based on the common visual XAI Grad-CAM, a clinically…
▽ More
An AI tool has been developed to provide interpretable support for the diagnosis of BCC via teledermatology, thus speeding up referrals and optimizing resource utilization. The interpretability is provided in two ways: on the one hand, the main BCC dermoscopic patterns are found in the image to justify the BCC/Non BCC classification. Secondly, based on the common visual XAI Grad-CAM, a clinically inspired visual explanation is developed where the relevant features for diagnosis are located. Since there is no established ground truth for BCC dermoscopic features, a standard reference is inferred from the diagnosis of four dermatologists using an Expectation Maximization (EM) based algorithm. The results demonstrate significant improvements in classification accuracy and interpretability, positioning this approach as a valuable tool for early BCC detection and referral to dermatologists. The BCC/non-BCC classification achieved an accuracy rate of 90%. For Clinically-inspired XAI results, the detection of BCC patterns useful to clinicians reaches 99% accuracy. As for the Clinically-inspired Visual XAI results, the mean of the Grad-CAM normalized value within the manually segmented clinical features is 0.57, while outside this region it is 0.16. This indicates that the model struggles to accurately identify the regions of the BCC patterns. These results prove the ability of the AI tool to provide a useful explanation.
△ Less
Submitted 27 June, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
Concordance in basal cell carcinoma diagnosis. Building a proper ground truth to train Artificial Intelligence tools
Authors:
Francisca Silva-Clavería,
Carmen Serrano,
Iván Matas,
Amalia Serrano,
Tomás Toledo-Pastrana,
David Moreno-Ramírez,
Begoña Acha
Abstract:
Background: The existence of different basal cell carcinoma (BCC) clinical criteria cannot be objectively validated. An adequate ground-truth is needed to train an artificial intelligence (AI) tool that explains the BCC diagnosis by providing its dermoscopic features. Objectives: To determine the consensus among dermatologists on dermoscopic criteria of 204 BCC. To analyze the performance of an AI…
▽ More
Background: The existence of different basal cell carcinoma (BCC) clinical criteria cannot be objectively validated. An adequate ground-truth is needed to train an artificial intelligence (AI) tool that explains the BCC diagnosis by providing its dermoscopic features. Objectives: To determine the consensus among dermatologists on dermoscopic criteria of 204 BCC. To analyze the performance of an AI tool when the ground-truth is inferred. Methods: A single center, diagnostic and prospective study was conducted to analyze the agreement in dermoscopic criteria by four dermatologists and then derive a reference standard. 1434 dermoscopic images have been used, that were taken by a primary health physician, sent via teledermatology, and diagnosed by a dermatologist. They were randomly selected from the teledermatology platform (2019-2021). 204 of them were tested with an AI tool; the remainder trained it. The performance of the AI tool trained using the ground-truth of one dermatologist versus the ground-truth statistically inferred from the consensus of four dermatologists was analyzed using McNemar's test and Hamming distance. Results: Dermatologists achieve perfect agreement in the diagnosis of BCC (Fleiss-Kappa=0.9079), and a high correlation with the biopsy (PPV=0.9670). However, there is low agreement in detecting some dermoscopic criteria. Statistical differences were found in the performance of the AI tool trained using the ground-truth of one dermatologist versus the ground-truth statistically inferred from the consensus of four dermatologists. Conclusions: Care should be taken when training an AI tool to determine the BCC patterns present in a lesion. Ground-truth should be established from multiple dermatologists.
△ Less
Submitted 26 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
