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.
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA · Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA · Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China