ArticleResearch square2026
How is Artificial Intelligence Transforming the Skin Cancer Screening Pathway? An Umbrella Review.
Article in Research square, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: AI algorithms for skin cancer detection have shown performance comparable to clinicians in controlled settings, yet their real-world reliability, performance across diverse populations, and readiness for clinical deployment remain uncertain. This umbrella review synthesizes evidence across the screening pathway to characterize AI performance, identify equity gaps, and assess implementation readiness. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and CINAHL (November 6, 2024) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating AI for skin cancer detection, excluding narrative reviews, scoping reviews, and reviews not reporting diagnostic accuracy. Two investigators (LS, AB) independently screened studies and assessed quality using ROBIS; one (LS) extracted data with verification by a second (AB). Findings were synthesized narratively by screening phase. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024605934). Results: Of 411 records identified, 37 (2008-2024) met inclusion criteria; 10 (27.0%) were judged low risk of bias, 22 (59.5%) high, and five (13.5%) unclear. Self-screening applications demonstrated marked performance variability (sensitivity 0-98%), with reduced sensitivity for melanoma detection reported across reviews. Primary care AI achieved moderate accuracy (sensitivity 60-84%, specificity 88-93%). Specialist dermoscopy-based AI achieved sensitivities comparable to dermatologists (82-91%), and histopathology AI achieved 90% sensitivity. AI augmentation increased clinician sensitivity by 6-8 percentage points, with greater benefit for generalists (+28%) than specialists (+2%). Engagement with skin tone and ethnicity increased but remained largely superficial, and >70% of datasets were from light-skinned populations. Evidence disproportionately targeted melanoma (>40% of reviews) despite it comprising <2% of skin cancers; no reviews employed implementation science frameworks. Conclusions: Current evidence does not support unsupervised clinical deployment of AI-based skin cancer detection. Self-screening tools demonstrate inconsistent performance, equity gaps persist, and common non-melanoma skin cancers remain understudied. These findings support the need for stage-specific validation standards and performance reporting.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.