3 ms·

An iPhone App Offers Quick and Inexpensive Melanoma Screening

24 points by srikar 12y ago

nkuttler 12y ago
Interesting. Somewhat similar to a story that was posted yesterday, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7703871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7703871, http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/05/06/309003098/chemist-turns-software-developer-after-sons-cancer-diagnosis http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/05/06/309003098/chemist...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
akie 12y ago
Not to be snarky, but this is only inexpensive when you already have the $600 phone.
- georgemcbay 12y ago
  ... and the $500+ dermascope that is also required. The combined items (phone+scope) probably do cost way less than whatever specialized systems are in place at most dermatologists (since the cost of most medical devices are obscene), but probably also come nowhere close to the price that could be achieved by talented hardware hackers who really wanted to get the price as low as possible.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  Did you read the article? It also requires a $500 camera attachment device. It seems to be aimed more at local doctors than regular consumers and has an accuracy rate higher than the average primary care physician accuracy rate.
rfatnabayeff 12y ago
The technique is reported to be 85% accurate. That is, there's 15% chance of false positive. According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanoma#Epidemiology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanoma#Epidemiology), upper bound for melanoma incidence is 20 per 100000 inhabitants. Consider that 100000 people used the technique to screen themselves. There would be 15000 of them that would got the positive test result and only 20 of them who have melanoma. Thus, for a person having the positive result the probability that he indeed has the melanoma is LESS than 0.013%. That is , the probability of that the technique is reporting B.S. is over 99.8%. Influenced by recent HN post: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/doctors-flunk-quiz-screening-test-math https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/doctors-flunk-quiz-...
- icebraining 12y ago
  Since the device costs $500, I doubt many people will be screening themselves. Sounds more like a tool for professionals in less equipped areas.
  - rfatnabayeff 12y ago
    Whatever the number of people, the device is still 99.8% B.S.-teller for $500.
    - w1ntermute 12y ago
      The fatal flaw in your reasoning lies in your assumption that the device will be used to screen for melanoma in the entire population. In reality, it would be used only on patients who show other signs that would normally result in a referral to a specialist (i.e., the chance they have melanoma is much higher than 20/100000). The likelihood of an accurate diagnosis is 85% when this population is examined, and not the general population. As the article states, the likelihood of an accurate diagnosis (85%) is the same regardless of whether it's performed in the traditional manner by a specialist, or if it's performed using this device by a physician who would have otherwise referred the patient to a specialist. TL;DR: 73.6% of all statistics are made up.
- lmartel 12y ago
  A great statistical point--but assuming they're marketing this to (local/small town) doctors rather than laypeople, is that worse than they'd do by "eyeballing" it?
- DanBC 12y ago
  There's not enough information to know what "85% accuracy" means. Is that false positive, or false negatives, or a combination of both, or misreporting? I agree that presenting risks as percentages instead of real numbers is misleading. But they say this device is better than primary care doctors so I'm not sure what that says about primary care. Gerd Gigerenzer wrote a book in 2002 about clinicians inability to understand percentages and screening tests. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0140297863?pc_redir=1399146585&robot_redir=1 http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0140297863?pc_redir=13991465... http://plus.maths.org/content/reckoning-risk http://plus.maths.org/content/reckoning-risk http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0140297863?pc_redir=1399339535&robot_redir=1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0140297863?pc_redir=1399339535...
fredley 12y ago
Single-image analysis is never going to be that accurate unless you've got a melanoma which already is very advanced. Detecting a changing lesion is a much more effective way of spotting a potential melanoma, and can catch something much sooner than these apps, many of which have come before. Disclosure: I work for Skin Analytics http://skin-analytics.com http://skin-analytics.com
- MrBuddyCasino 12y ago
  Can you comment on the dermoscope? I'm curious why something like this costs 500$ - it sounds like a plastic lens and some LEDs would fit the job description.
  - fredley 12y ago
    A dermascope uses different wavelengths of light to get a picture of what's going on slightly below the skin as well as on its surface. This requires special lenses and lights, which I imagine are not used outside of this specific case, hence the cost.
    - Angostura 12y ago
      I wonder if the iPhone 5s fingerprint scanner could be hacked to produce a rudimentary system it is meant to to involve 'subdermal scanning' according to the Apple marketing department.

24 points by srikar 12y ago

Interesting. Somewhat similar to a story that was posted yesterday, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7703871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7703871, http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/05/06/309003098/chemist-turns-software-developer-after-sons-cancer-diagnosis http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/05/06/309003098/chemist...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

akie 12y ago

Not to be snarky, but this is only inexpensive when you already have the $600 phone.

georgemcbay 12y ago
... and the $500+ dermascope that is also required. The combined items (phone+scope) probably do cost way less than whatever specialized systems are in place at most dermatologists (since the cost of most medical devices are obscene), but probably also come nowhere close to the price that could be achieved by talented hardware hackers who really wanted to get the price as low as possible.
k-mcgrady 12y ago
Did you read the article? It also requires a $500 camera attachment device. It seems to be aimed more at local doctors than regular consumers and has an accuracy rate higher than the average primary care physician accuracy rate.

rfatnabayeff 12y ago

The technique is reported to be 85% accurate. That is, there's 15% chance of false positive. According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanoma#Epidemiology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanoma#Epidemiology), upper bound for melanoma incidence is 20 per 100000 inhabitants. Consider that 100000 people used the technique to screen themselves. There would be 15000 of them that would got the positive test result and only 20 of them who have melanoma. Thus, for a person having the positive result the probability that he indeed has the melanoma is LESS than 0.013%. That is , the probability of that the technique is reporting B.S. is over 99.8%. Influenced by recent HN post: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/doctors-flunk-quiz-screening-test-math https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/doctors-flunk-quiz-...

icebraining 12y ago
Since the device costs $500, I doubt many people will be screening themselves. Sounds more like a tool for professionals in less equipped areas.
- rfatnabayeff 12y ago
  Whatever the number of people, the device is still 99.8% B.S.-teller for $500.
  - w1ntermute 12y ago
    The fatal flaw in your reasoning lies in your assumption that the device will be used to screen for melanoma in the entire population. In reality, it would be used only on patients who show other signs that would normally result in a referral to a specialist (i.e., the chance they have melanoma is much higher than 20/100000). The likelihood of an accurate diagnosis is 85% when this population is examined, and not the general population. As the article states, the likelihood of an accurate diagnosis (85%) is the same regardless of whether it's performed in the traditional manner by a specialist, or if it's performed using this device by a physician who would have otherwise referred the patient to a specialist. TL;DR: 73.6% of all statistics are made up.
lmartel 12y ago
A great statistical point--but assuming they're marketing this to (local/small town) doctors rather than laypeople, is that worse than they'd do by "eyeballing" it?
DanBC 12y ago
There's not enough information to know what "85% accuracy" means. Is that false positive, or false negatives, or a combination of both, or misreporting? I agree that presenting risks as percentages instead of real numbers is misleading. But they say this device is better than primary care doctors so I'm not sure what that says about primary care. Gerd Gigerenzer wrote a book in 2002 about clinicians inability to understand percentages and screening tests. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0140297863?pc_redir=1399146585&robot_redir=1 http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0140297863?pc_redir=13991465... http://plus.maths.org/content/reckoning-risk http://plus.maths.org/content/reckoning-risk http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0140297863?pc_redir=1399339535&robot_redir=1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0140297863?pc_redir=1399339535...

fredley 12y ago

Single-image analysis is never going to be that accurate unless you've got a melanoma which already is very advanced. Detecting a changing lesion is a much more effective way of spotting a potential melanoma, and can catch something much sooner than these apps, many of which have come before. Disclosure: I work for Skin Analytics http://skin-analytics.com http://skin-analytics.com

MrBuddyCasino 12y ago
Can you comment on the dermoscope? I'm curious why something like this costs 500$ - it sounds like a plastic lens and some LEDs would fit the job description.
- fredley 12y ago
  A dermascope uses different wavelengths of light to get a picture of what's going on slightly below the skin as well as on its surface. This requires special lenses and lights, which I imagine are not used outside of this specific case, hence the cost.
  - Angostura 12y ago
    I wonder if the iPhone 5s fingerprint scanner could be hacked to produce a rudimentary system it is meant to to involve 'subdermal scanning' according to the Apple marketing department.