CNNs, Transformers, Hybrid, and Vision Language Models for Skin Cancer Detection

Modern deep learning offers powerful tools for automated retinal screening, but it remains unclear how different visual model families compare in realistic multi-disease settings and under domain shift. In this work, we benchmark twelve architectures across four model families: convolutional neural networks, vision transformers, hybrid CNN-transformer backbones, and vision-language models, using the Retinal Fundus Multi-disease Image Dataset (RFMiD). We evaluate two tasks: binary screening for any retinal disease and multi-label classification across 28 disease classes. Using standardized training, calibration, and evaluation protocols, we report AUC, F1, precision, recall, and sensitivity at a clinically relevant operating point with specificity near 80%. On RFMiD, all architectures perform well on binary screening, with AUC above 84%, but attention-based models perform best. SwinTiny and the hybrid CoAtNet0 and MaxViTTiny models achieve the strongest binary screening results and improve macro and micro F1 in the multi-label setting. Vision-language models, including CLIP ViT-B/16 and SigLIP-Base384, are competitive with CNN baselines but do not surpass the best transformer and hybrid backbones. In external validation on Messidor-2 for referable diabetic retinopathy, AUC ranges from 66.8% to 84.7%, with hybrid and transformer models again showing strong performance. These results provide a reproducible reference for model selection in multi-disease retinal screening and guide future automated screening tools for clinical deployment.

Early diagnosis of melanoma is critical for improving patient survival rates. However, accurately distinguishing melanoma from other skin lesions remains a significant clinical challenge due to the high visual similarity among lesion types and variability in image acquisition conditions. Artificial intelligence, particularly machine learning, has emerged as a promising tool to support dermatological diagnosis by automating feature extraction from medical images. Among the available approaches, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have demonstrated strong performance in image classification tasks, making them well-suited for analyzing both dermatoscopic and histopathological images, given their ability to capture hierarchical visual patterns relevant to lesion characterization. Nevertheless, despite numerous pre-trained CNN architectures having been proposed, selecting the most appropriate one for a given imaging modality remains an open challenge. In this study, we evaluate pre-trained convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for skin lesion classification using dermatoscopic and histopathological image datasets. Experiments were conducted on the HAM10000, ISIC 2018, and CR-AI4SkIN datasets, evaluating the ResNet50, VGG16, VGG19, MobileNet, and InceptionV3 architectures under the same training protocol. The experimental evaluation showed that the models achieved accuracies ranging from 71% (InceptionV3 on ISIC 2018) to 84% (ResNet50 on HAM10000) on dermatoscopic images. For histopathological images, accuracies ranged from 72% (VGG19) to 83% (ResNet50) on the CR-AI4SkIN dataset. The results demonstrate that model performance differs between dermatoscopic and histopathological image modalities, showing that architectures exhibiting similar performance on dermatoscopic images exhibit different performance on histopathological data.

Purpose. To compare deep learning architectures and classification schemes for dermoscopic images of skin neoplasms and assess their generalization on transfer from open international datasets to independent clinical datasets of Russian practice. Methods. Four architectures (ViT-B/16, Swin-S, ConvNeXt-S, EfficientNetV2-S) were compared in three schemes: binary (malignant/benign), single-stage four-class (benign, MEL, SCC, BCC), and a two-stage cascade (binary triage, then three-class differentiation MEL/SCC/BCC). All models used ImageNet-pretrained weights and a single augmentation protocol on aggregated open ISIC Archive data, and were evaluated on an internal held-out sample and two clinical datasets (Melanoscope AI mobile system; Sechenov University). Results. Internally the binary stage attains ROC-AUC 0.952-0.966; on Sechenov University it drops to 0.797-0.893, sensitivity to 0.53-0.67, and ECE rises from 0.02 to 0.27-0.39 with underestimation of malignancy, quantifying a generalization gap in ranking and calibration. Paired tests confirm one inter-architecture result on clinical data: the deficit of ViT-B/16 at the binary stage (p<0.05); at the differentiation stage no architecture has a proven advantage. The cascade raises macro F1 over single-stage four-class classification for most architectures, but significantly only for ViT-B/16, by recovering malignant lesions assigned to the dominant benign class. On ISIC MILK10k, direct 11-class classification yields mean-class sensitivity 0.525. Conclusion. A tunable triage threshold gives sensitivity control not attainable in standard single-stage (argmax) classification and better reproduces clinical differential-diagnosis logic. The persistent generalization gap mandates external clinical validation and recalibration before deployment.