Abstract
Background: Artificial Intelligence (AI) has demonstrated a high image processing capacity and improved diagnostic accuracy in dermatology. In this context, Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) systems have shown a diagnostic performance comparable to that of specialists in classifying skin lesions, particularly pigmented lesions. The present study aims to validate Legit.Health is a reliable tool for diagnosing and assessing the severity of patients with skin lesions suspicious of malignacy. Objective: To validate that the Legit.Health medical device optimises clinical workflow by enhancing diagnostic accuracy and determining the malignancy or severity of patients with skin lesions suspicious of malignacy. Methods: An observational, prospective study was conducted, incorporating both longitudinal and retrospective cases. A total of 76 retrospective patients with 88 lesions and 32 prospective patients with 42 lesions attending Instituto de Dermatologia Integral Madrid, Spain, were recruited. The diagnostic performance of Legit.Health was compared with that of dermatologists in the retrospective images against a gold standard (biopsy results). In the prospective phase of the study, the performance of the current Legit.Health medical device was evaluated alongside dermatologists assisted by the device and the latest version of the device (Legit.Health Plus). Analyses were performed to calculate the AUC (area under the curve), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. Results: In the retrospective analysis, the device demonstrated an AUC of 0.76 compared to 0.79 for dermatologists in detecting malignant lesions. For these images, the device achieved the following accuracy scores: top-1 = 0.23, top-3 = 0.38, and top-5 = 0.47, whereas dermatologists achieved top-1 = 0.33 and top-3 = 0.45 (providing only three possible diagnoses). When the specific histologic subtype of naevus was not considered in the diagnosis, Legit.Health achieved an accuracy of top-1 = 0.50, top-3 = 0.71, and top-5 = 0.78, compared to dermatologists' top-1 = 0.50 and top-3 = 0.70. In the prospective analysis, we examined the performance of dermatologists using the Legit.Health medical device, the device alone, and the latest version of the device. In the malignancy analysis, they achieved an AUC of 0.94, 0.95, and 0.97, respectively. Regarding diagnostic accuracy, dermatologists assisted by the medical device achieved a top-1 accuracy of 0.30, while both the medical device alone and its latest version achieved top-1 accuracies of 0.22 and 0.26, respectively, which increased to 0.44 and 0.52 when expanding to top-5. When the specific histologic subtype of naevus was not considered in the diagnosis, accuracies increased to 0.85, 0.74, and 0.81, respectively, further improving as top-K was increased to top-5, reaching 0.89 and 0.93, respectively. Conclusions: The device's diagnostic capability in distinguishing malignant conditions is on par with that of expert dermatologists. This confirms its reliability as a tool for detecting skin malignant categories in ICD-11, assisting in prioritising patients based on urgency and directing them to the appropriate specialist or consultation.
Competing Interest Statement
Alfonso Medela, Andy Aguilar, Taig Mac Carthy, Gerardo Fernandez and Antonio Martorell are shareholders and Board Members of AI Labs Group S.L. Jordi Barrachina is an employee of AI LABS GROUP S.L.
Funding Statement
This study was co-funded by the European Union (NextGenerationEU) through the Public Business Entity Red.es (State Secretariat for Digitalization and Artificial Intelligence, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Digital Transformation) within the framework of the 2021 Call for Grants for research and development projects in artificial intelligence and other digital technologies, and their integration into value chains (C005/21-ED), with file number 2021/C005/00154001
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee of HM Hospitales (Comite Etico de Investigacion con medicamentos) gave ethical approval for this work, under reference number 24.12.2266-GHM.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.