The application of machine learning to dermatology has grown substantially in recent years, moving beyond proof-of-concept studies toward potential applications. However, clinical dermatology remains a challenging and still open problem. Diagnostic assessment is often ambiguous, and skin lesions exhibit high variability, compounded by differences in acquisition modality, device quality, and patient demographics. These factors hinder the development of robust models suitable for safe and equitable clinical use. To support translation into practice, it is essential to systematically evaluate how contemporary models generalize across heterogeneous data sources. In this work, we benchmark a diverse set of architectures on recent dermatology datasets, spanning dermoscopic images and smartphone-based clinical photographs. We assess the robustness of recent general-purpose and medical vision-language models, as well as foundation models, and compare them against task-specific dermatology classifiers, including embedding-based approaches and convolutional neural networks. Our study provides an evaluation of model performance under distribution shifts, modality changes, and demographic variability. By quantifying the gap between current state-of-the-art models and the requirements of clinical deployment, we aim to contribute to the development of reliable, accessible, and clinically applicable AI systems for dermatology.
Figures & tables
Dataset
VLM
CNN/ViT
Embeddings
PAD
0.7671
0.9162
0.9343
HC
0.6123
0.8281
0.8760
ISIC18
0.6026
0.8509
0.8738
ISIC24
0.7048
0.8444
0.8333
DDI
0.6667
0.9112
0.8712
HAM10000
0.5622
0.8859
0.9043
Table 1: Best Macro F1-score per model family across datasets.
Dataset
Unbalanced
Undersampling
SMOTE
PAD
0.9343
0.9124
0.9152
HC
0.8760
0.8680
0.8567
ISIC18
0.8738
0.7797
0.8716
ISIC24
0.8313
0.8333
0.7955
DDI
0.8224
0.8712
0.8071
HAM10000
0.9022
0.8050
0.9043
Table 2: Best Macro F1-score achieved under different class imbalance strategies (embedding-based models).
Architecture
Dermoscopic
Clinical
Merged-All
Derm-Foundation
0.8308
0.8872
0.8714
DINOv3 ViT-7B/16
0.8503
0.8888
0.8783
DINOv2 Giant
0.8383
0.8479
0.8641
ConvNeXt (best)
0.8373
0.8624
0.8619
EfficientNet (best)
0.8171
0.8218
-
Best VLM (prompt-based)
0.5794
0.6723
0.6114
Table 3: Average Macro Best F1-score per architecture across evaluation categories.
Setting
Model
HC
PAD
ISIC18
ISIC24
Dual Encoder
BiomedCLIP
0.3362
0.3951
0.3375
0.3041
CLIP-B/32
0.5882
0.4866
0.5185
0.5382
CLIP-L/14
0.3191
0.4866
0.1740
0.6116
MedSigLIP
0.5686
0.6387
0.4815
0.4755
Prompt + ABCDE
Gemma-3 27B
0.5313
0.5504
0.2040
0.7048
LLaMA-3.2V 11B
0.3087
0.4090
0.1367
0.2823
Table 4: F1-score comparison of VLM variants on datasets with available patient metadata.
Figure 1: Qualitative false negative (left) and false positive (right) cases in malignancy prediction on dermoscopic (HAM10000) and clinical (HC) data.
Deep learning models for dermatological image analysis remain sensitive to acquisition variability and domain-specific visual characteristics, leading to performance degradation when deployed in clinical settings. We investigate how visual artifacts and domain shifts affect deep learning-based skin lesion classification. We propose an adaptation strategy, grounded in the idea of visual meta-domains, that transfers visual representations from larger dermoscopic datasets into clinical image domains, thereby improving generalization robustness. Experiments across multiple dermatology datasets show consistent gains in classification performance and reduced gaps between dermoscopic and clinical images. These results emphasize the importance of domain-aware training for deployable systems.
Rodrigo Mota, Kelvin Cunha, Emanoel dos Santos +6
Centro de Informática, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Brazil
Vision--language models (VLMs) have recently shown promise for assisting clinical reasoning in dermatological diagnosis. However, their trustworthiness and clinical utility remain limited by three key challenges: heterogeneous datasets with inconsistent diagnostic labels and concept annotations, the lack of grounded diagnostic rationales for reliable reasoning supervision, and limited scalability when transferring knowledge from small, densely annotated datasets to large collections with sparse labels. To address these challenges, we propose Skin-R1, a dermatology-oriented VLM that integrates textbook-grounded clinical reasoning supervision with reinforcement learning (RL) to improve the accuracy and robustness of diagnostic prediction. First, we construct a textbook-based reasoning generator that synthesizes hierarchy-aware and differential-diagnosis (DDx) diagnostic trajectories derived from authoritative dermatology knowledge. Second, these trajectories are used for supervised fine-tuning (SFT), establishing a clinically grounded reasoning foundation for the model. Finally, we introduce an RL training framework that incorporates the hierarchical structure of dermatological diseases into the reward design, enabling the model to generalize grounded diagnostic reasoning to large-scale datasets with sparse annotations. Extensive experiments across multiple dermatology benchmarks demonstrate that Skin-R1 consistently improves diagnostic accuracy and robustness compared to state-of-the-art Med-VLM baselines. Ablation studies further highlight the critical role of grounded reasoning supervision introduced during the SFT stage.
Zehao Liu, Weijieying Ren, Jipeng Zhang +4
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA · Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA · Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China
Artificial intelligence (AI) has advanced at a rapid pace in recent years. Initially, breakthroughs in large language models caught widespread attention. However, recent generations of frontier AI models have adopted multimodal capabilities as a first class citizen, with vision capabilities being central to that. In this paper, we evaluate three recently released models on the task of diagnosing dermatological conditions from patient-submitted images. The models chosen are at the low to mid tier in terms of pricing and thus represent a floor on current AI capabilities, not a ceiling. We evaluate AI performance relative to a panel of three certified dermatologists, who grade each image, and we present four interesting findings. Firstly, depending on the metric, the tested AI models are either on par or slightly trail humans in terms of inter-clinician agreement. Secondly, we find that asking AI models for a confidence rating produces poorly calibrated answers, meaning use of confidence thresholds should not be relied upon in a clinical setting. Thirdly, the effect of providing additional patient metadata is strongly model-specific, with one of the three models degrading on every metric considered. Finally, model cost is not predictive of performance. The best-performing model we tested costs on average $0.0045 per case.
Rian Dolphin, Laura Knowles
Independent Research, Dublin, Ireland · School of Medicine, University of Limerick, Ireland