Reliable automated classification of skin lesions requires models that capture both local dermoscopic morphology and broader contextual patterns while maintaining auditable, leakage-aware internal validation. This study aimed to develop and internally validate an explainable ensemble combining convolutional and transformer feature extractors to classify histopathology-verified dermoscopic images as benign melanocytic lesions or malignant melanoma.
The authors retrospectively screened 552,869 records from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC) Archive. After applying filtering criteria and dermatologist review, a cohort of 1,199 unique-patient and unique-lesion dermoscopic images was assembled: 578 labeled benign and 621 labeled malignant. Images served as the model predictors and histopathology served as the reference standard. The cohort manifest, applied query criteria, and associated metadata are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and under applicable ISIC terms.
The ensemble fused features from two ImageNet-pretrained backbones: EfficientNetB0 and Swin-T (Swin Transformer Tiny). Feature fusion of these architectures was used to leverage both convolutional and transformer-derived representations. Training employed standard regularization and augmentation techniques including weighted sampling, mixup, and label smoothing. Optimization used the AdamW optimizer, and early stopping was applied. Models incorporated five-view test-time augmentation during evaluation to improve robustness.
A patient-independent five-fold validation was performed to reduce the risk of patient-level data leakage. The authors describe this as a leakage-aware internal validation workflow and applied weighted sampling and augmentation strategies across folds. It is explicitly stated that the validation folds were also used for early stopping and checkpoint selection, which the authors list as a limitation of their internal validation approach.
Across the five validation folds the ensemble achieved the following mean performance metrics: mean accuracy 0.89325 ± 0.03179, mean receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC-AUC) 0.96348 ± 0.01695, and mean support-weighted F1-score 0.89300 ± 0.03220. Fold-level 95% confidence intervals were reported as 0.8538–0.9327 for accuracy and 0.9424–0.9845 for ROC-AUC.
The pooled confusion matrix counts across folds were reported as: 526 true negatives, 52 false positives, 76 false negatives, and 545 true positives. From these pooled counts the authors report a sensitivity of 87.76% and a specificity of 91.00%.
Model interpretability was assessed qualitatively using Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM). The qualitative review noted peripheral artifact activation in two false positive cases and lesion-centered activation in two correctly classified cases. These interpretability observations were not systematically scored or quantified in the study; no formal, reproducible interpretability scoring was reported.
The authors explicitly list several limitations:
These limitations are described as constraints on the internal validation and on claims about clinical readiness.
The underlying source images and metadata used in this work are publicly available through the ISIC Archive. Individual ISIC records remain subject to their license and attribution requirements. The filtered 1,199-image cohort manifest and associated metadata supporting the findings are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request and subject to ISIC terms of use.
The authors declare that institutional review and participant consent matters were addressed in accordance with ISIC Archive policies, and they state compliance with relevant ethical guidelines. The authors also declare no competing interests.
The EfficientNetB0–Swin-T ensemble demonstrated high internal discrimination for classifying histopathology-verified dermoscopic images as benign or malignant in this curated, leakage-aware internal validation. Reported metrics include a mean ROC-AUC of 0.96348 and mean accuracy of 0.89325 across five patient-independent folds. The authors emphasize that the model is intended as a clinician-facing adjunct and not as a standalone diagnostic tool.
The study presents an error audit workflow intended to enable targeted retrospective review; however, because of the limitations noted — particularly the absence of independent external validation, device-stratified evaluation, calibration assessment, and systematic interpretability scoring — the authors state that external validation is required before clinical use or generalizability claims can be made.