Mitigating Overfitting in Medical Imaging: Self-Supervised Pretraining vs. ImageNet Transfer Learning for Dermatological Diagnosis

Deep learning has transformed computer vision but relies heavily on large labeled datasets and computational resources. Transfer learning, particularly fine-tuning pretrained models, offers a practical alternative; however, models pretrained on natural image datasets such as ImageNet may fail to capture domain-specific characteristics in medical imaging. This study introduces an unsupervised learning framework that extracts high-value dermatological features instead of relying solely on ImageNet-based pretraining. We employ a Variational Autoencoder (VAE) trained from scratch on a proprietary dermatological dataset, allowing the model to learn a structured and clinically relevant latent space. This self-supervised feature extractor is then compared to an ImageNet-pretrained backbone under identical classification conditions, highlighting the trade-offs between general-purpose and domain-specific pretraining. Our results reveal distinct learning patterns. The self-supervised model achieves a final validation loss of 0.110 (-33.33%), while the ImageNet-pretrained model stagnates at 0.100 (-16.67%), indicating overfitting. Accuracy trends confirm this: the self-supervised model improves from 45% to 65% (+44.44%) with a near-zero overfitting gap, whereas the ImageNet-pretrained model reaches 87% (+50.00%) but plateaus at 75% (+19.05%), with its overfitting gap increasing to +0.060. These findings suggest that while ImageNet pretraining accelerates convergence, it also amplifies overfitting on non-clinically relevant features. In contrast, self-supervised learning achieves steady improvements, stronger generalization, and superior adaptability, underscoring the importance of domain-specific feature extraction in medical imaging.

AI-Driven Skin Cancer Diagnosis: Grad-CAM and Expert Annotations for Enhanced Interpretability

An AI tool has been developed to provide interpretable support for the diagnosis of BCC via teledermatology, thus speeding up referrals and optimizing resource utilization. The interpretability is provided in two ways: on the one hand, the main BCC dermoscopic patterns are found in the image to justify the BCC/Non BCC classification. Secondly, based on the common visual XAI Grad-CAM, a clinically inspired visual explanation is developed where the relevant features for diagnosis are located. Since there is no established ground truth for BCC dermoscopic features, a standard reference is inferred from the diagnosis of four dermatologists using an Expectation Maximization (EM) based algorithm. The results demonstrate significant improvements in classification accuracy and interpretability, positioning this approach as a valuable tool for early BCC detection and referral to dermatologists. The BCC/non-BCC classification achieved an accuracy rate of 90%. For Clinically-inspired XAI results, the detection of BCC patterns useful to clinicians reaches 99% accuracy. As for the Clinically-inspired Visual XAI results, the mean of the Grad-CAM normalized value within the manually segmented clinical features is 0.57, while outside this region it is 0.16. This indicates that the model struggles to accurately identify the regions of the BCC patterns. These results prove the ability of the AI tool to provide a useful explanation.

Concordance in basal cell carcinoma diagnosis. Building a proper ground truth to train Artificial Intelligence tools

Background: The existence of different basal cell carcinoma (BCC) clinical criteria cannot be objectively validated. An adequate ground-truth is needed to train an artificial intelligence (AI) tool that explains the BCC diagnosis by providing its dermoscopic features. Objectives: To determine the consensus among dermatologists on dermoscopic criteria of 204 BCC. To analyze the performance of an AI tool when the ground-truth is inferred. Methods: A single center, diagnostic and prospective study was conducted to analyze the agreement in dermoscopic criteria by four dermatologists and then derive a reference standard. 1434 dermoscopic images have been used, that were taken by a primary health physician, sent via teledermatology, and diagnosed by a dermatologist. They were randomly selected from the teledermatology platform (2019-2021). 204 of them were tested with an AI tool; the remainder trained it. The performance of the AI tool trained using the ground-truth of one dermatologist versus the ground-truth statistically inferred from the consensus of four dermatologists was analyzed using McNemar's test and Hamming distance. Results: Dermatologists achieve perfect agreement in the diagnosis of BCC (Fleiss-Kappa=0.9079), and a high correlation with the biopsy (PPV=0.9670). However, there is low agreement in detecting some dermoscopic criteria. Statistical differences were found in the performance of the AI tool trained using the ground-truth of one dermatologist versus the ground-truth statistically inferred from the consensus of four dermatologists. Conclusions: Care should be taken when training an AI tool to determine the BCC patterns present in a lesion. Ground-truth should be established from multiple dermatologists.