Background: Convolutional neural network (CNN)-based melanoma classifiers face several challenges that limit their usefulness in clinical practice. Objective: To investigate the impact of multiple real-world dermoscopic views of a single lesion of interest on a CNN-based melanoma classifier. Methods: This study evaluated 656 suspected melanoma lesions. Classifier performance was measured using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), expected calibration error (ECE) and maximum confidence change (MCC) for (I) a single-view scenario, (II) a multiview scenario using multiple artificially modified images per lesion and (III) a multiview scenario with multiple real-world images per lesion. Results: The multiview approach with real-world images significantly increased the AUROC from 0.905 (95% CI, 0.879-0.929) in the single-view approach to 0.930 (95% CI, 0.909-0.951). ECE and MCC also improved significantly from 0.131 (95% CI, 0.105-0.159) to 0.072 (95% CI: 0.052-0.093) and from 0.149 (95% CI, 0.125-0.171) to 0.115 (95% CI: 0.099-0.131), respectively. Comparing multiview real-world to artificially modified images showed comparable diagnostic accuracy and uncertainty estimation, but significantly worse robustness for the latter. Conclusion: Using multiple real-world images is an inexpensive method to positively impact the performance of a CNN-based melanoma classifier.

Although artificial intelligence (AI) systems have been shown to improve the accuracy of initial melanoma diagnosis, the lack of transparency in how these systems identify melanoma poses severe obstacles to user acceptance. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods can help to increase transparency, but most XAI methods are unable to produce precisely located domain-specific explanations, making the explanations difficult to interpret. Moreover, the impact of XAI methods on dermatologists has not yet been evaluated. Extending on two existing classifiers, we developed an XAI system that produces text and region based explanations that are easily interpretable by dermatologists alongside its differential diagnoses of melanomas and nevi. To evaluate this system, we conducted a three-part reader study to assess its impact on clinicians' diagnostic accuracy, confidence, and trust in the XAI-support. We showed that our XAI's explanations were highly aligned with clinicians' explanations and that both the clinicians' trust in the support system and their confidence in their diagnoses were significantly increased when using our XAI compared to using a conventional AI system. The clinicians' diagnostic accuracy was numerically, albeit not significantly, increased. This work demonstrates that clinicians are willing to adopt such an XAI system, motivating their future use in the clinic.