Accuracy of a smartphone application using fractal image analysis of pigmented moles compared to clinical diagnosis and histological result

Abstract

The smartphone application using fractal analysis might be a promising tool in the pre-evaluation of pigmented moles by laypersons, while it is to date inferior to the diagnostic evaluation by a dermatologist.

Teledermatology: current perspectives

“…The sensitivity of teledermatology diagnosis ranged from 73% to 97%, and the specificity ranged from 73% to 83%. 28,30,32,33 Results comparing FTF and histopathological diagnosis were slightly better than the teledermatology diagnoses by Maier et al 28 and Tan et al, 32 but no statistical difference was found by the former and there was no direct comparison of results between telediagnosis and FTF diagnosis by the latter.…”

“…[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] Studies were predominantly from high income countries. Three studies were from the United States, 30,34,35 two studies from Germany, 27,28 and one from each of the following countries: Australia, 29 South Korea, 31 and New Zealand. 32 There was one study performed in Brazil, 33 which is an upper middle income country (Table S4).…”

“…There was a variety of participants between the studies, with predominance of female sex in two studies, 32,33 only male patients in two studies, 27,31 and no participant description in two other studies. 28,30 Participants' age also varied and the range included children to older adults. In all studies, teledermatology intervention was used for the treatment.…”

“…In only one study, the intervention did not involve the examination of photographs of the lesions by teledermatologists. Maier et al 28 aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a mobile application that uses an algorithm to propose a diagnosis and compare it to histopathological results. Two studies reported that teledermatology was not equivalent 35 or even inferior to FTF.…”

Use of Smartphones for Early Detection of Melanoma: Systematic Review (Preprint)

“…Thirty-one studies were included in the review ( Figure 1): twenty studies had been published as original articles [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50], six were conference papers [51][52][53][54][55][56] and five were research letters [57][58][59][60][61].…”