When AI and Experts Agree on Error: Intrinsic Ambiguity in Dermatoscopic Images
Fuente:
arXiv
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Preprint |
| Publicado: |
2026
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| _version_ | 1866911559582744576 |
|---|---|
| author | Cino, Loris Mazzeo, Pier Luigi Martella, Alessandro Radi, Giulia Rossi, Renato Distante, Cosimo |
| author_facet | Cino, Loris Mazzeo, Pier Luigi Martella, Alessandro Radi, Giulia Rossi, Renato Distante, Cosimo |
| contents | The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), into dermatological diagnosis demonstrates substantial clinical potential. While existing literature predominantly benchmarks algorithmic performance against human experts, our study adopts a novel perspective by investigating the intrinsic complexity of dermatoscopic images. Through rigorous experimentation with multiple CNN architectures, we isolated a subset of images systematically misclassified across all models-a phenomenon statistically proven to exceed random chance. To determine if these failures stem from algorithmic biases or inherent visual ambiguity, expert dermatologists independently evaluated these challenging cases alongside a control group. The results revealed a collapse in human diagnostic performance on the AI-misclassified images. First, agreement with ground-truth labels plummeted, with Cohen's kappa dropping to a mere 0.08 for the difficult images, compared to a 0.61 for the control group. Second, we observed a severe deterioration in expert consensus; inter-rater reliability among physicians fell from moderate concordance (Fleiss kappa = 0.456) on control images to only modest agreement (Fleiss kappa = 0.275) on difficult cases. We identified image quality as a primary driver of these dual systematic failures. To promote transparency and reproducibility, all data, code, and trained models have been made publicly available |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2604_00651 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | When AI and Experts Agree on Error: Intrinsic Ambiguity in Dermatoscopic Images Cino, Loris Mazzeo, Pier Luigi Martella, Alessandro Radi, Giulia Rossi, Renato Distante, Cosimo Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), into dermatological diagnosis demonstrates substantial clinical potential. While existing literature predominantly benchmarks algorithmic performance against human experts, our study adopts a novel perspective by investigating the intrinsic complexity of dermatoscopic images. Through rigorous experimentation with multiple CNN architectures, we isolated a subset of images systematically misclassified across all models-a phenomenon statistically proven to exceed random chance. To determine if these failures stem from algorithmic biases or inherent visual ambiguity, expert dermatologists independently evaluated these challenging cases alongside a control group. The results revealed a collapse in human diagnostic performance on the AI-misclassified images. First, agreement with ground-truth labels plummeted, with Cohen's kappa dropping to a mere 0.08 for the difficult images, compared to a 0.61 for the control group. Second, we observed a severe deterioration in expert consensus; inter-rater reliability among physicians fell from moderate concordance (Fleiss kappa = 0.456) on control images to only modest agreement (Fleiss kappa = 0.275) on difficult cases. We identified image quality as a primary driver of these dual systematic failures. To promote transparency and reproducibility, all data, code, and trained models have been made publicly available |
| title | When AI and Experts Agree on Error: Intrinsic Ambiguity in Dermatoscopic Images |
| topic | Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.00651 |