Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 18, 2026
Combining Reflectance Confocal Microscopy with Optical Coherence Tomography for Noninvasive Diagnosis of Skin Cancers via Image Acquisition
Published on: August 18, 2022
Automated detection of actinic keratoses in clinical photographs
Samuel C Hames1, Sudipta Sinnya1, Jean-Marie Tan1
1Dermatology Research Center, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Translational Research Institute, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Background:
Clinical diagnosis of actinic keratosis is known to have intra- and inter-observer variability, and there is currently no non-invasive and objective measure to diagnose these lesions.
Objective:
The aim of this pilot study was to determine if automatically detecting and circumscribing actinic keratoses in clinical photographs is feasible.
Methods:
Photographs of the face and dorsal forearms were acquired in 20 volunteers from two groups: the first with at least on actinic keratosis present on the face and each arm, the second with no actinic keratoses. The photographs were automatically analysed using colour space transforms and morphological features to detect erythema. The automated output was compared with a senior consultant dermatologist's assessment of the photographs, including the intra-observer variability. Performance was assessed by the correlation between total lesions detected by automated method and dermatologist, and whether the individual lesions detected were in the same location as the dermatologist identified lesions. Additionally, the ability to limit false positives was assessed by automatic assessment of the photographs from the no actinic keratosis group in comparison to the high actinic keratosis group.
Results:
The correlation between the automatic and dermatologist counts was 0.62 on the face and 0.51 on the arms, compared to the dermatologist's intra-observer variation of 0.83 and 0.93 for the same. Sensitivity of automatic detection was 39.5% on the face, 53.1% on the arms. Positive predictive values were 13.9% on the face and 39.8% on the arms. Significantly more lesions (p<0.0001) were detected in the high actinic keratosis group compared to the no actinic keratosis group.
Conclusions:
The proposed method was inferior to assessment by the dermatologist in terms of sensitivity and positive predictive value. However, this pilot study used only a single simple feature and was still able to achieve sensitivity of detection of 53.1% on the arms.This suggests that image analysis is a feasible avenue of investigation for overcoming variability in clinical assessment. Future studies should focus on more sophisticated features to improve sensitivity for actinic keratoses without erythema and limit false positives associated with the anatomical structures on the face.
