Smartphone applications designed to evaluate photos people have taken of their skin lesions and work out whether they have skin cancer are potentially harmful, often incorrectly diagnosing more than 30 percent of cases, a study as suggested.
In the study by dermatologists at the University of Pittsburgh, four applications were put to the test, analysing 188 skin lesions, 60 of which were melanoma. All had been previously diagnosed by a board-certified dermatopathologist. The sample excluded any highly atypical lesions which had been especially hard to diagnose and manage.
The aim was to test a range of apps -- which the study doesn't name -- that have been designed to help a non-clinician to determine whether their skin lesions/moles are benign or malignant.
The apps were chosen based on their popularity in key app stores.
The team picked those apps that claimed to be able to analyse photographs of skin lesions, but had to exclude those apps which would not analyse an existing image.
Three of the apps used algorithms to determine the risk of a particular skin lesion, while the fourth one allows users to submit their photos to a dermatologist for evaluation.
Of the 188 photos, the applications considered between 84.6 percent and 98.4 percent of the images to be evaluable. Using only those images considered evaluable for each application, the team calculate the sensitivity and specificity for each application.
They found that three out of four of the smartphone apps incorrectly classified 30 percent or more of melanomas as unconcerning. The fourth app -- the one which sent photos to dermatologists -- ony misdiagnosed one out of 53 cancerous lesions, however this one cost $5 (£3.10) for every diagnosis.
The authors remark that "reliance on these applications, which are not subject to regulatory oversight, in lieu of medical consultation can delay the diagnosis of melanoma and harm users".
The authors add: "Despite disclaimers that these applications are intended for educational purposes, they have the potential to harm users who may believe mistakenly that the evaluation given by such an application is a substitute for medical advice."
You can read the full study on JAMA Dermatology