Automatic nevi segmentation using adaptive mean shift filters and feature analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel automatic method of segmenting nevi is explained and analyzed in this paper. The first step in nevi segmentation is to iteratively apply an adaptive mean shift filter to form clusters in the image and to remove noise. The goal of this step is to remove differences in skin intensity and hairs from the image, while still preserving the shape of nevi present on the skin. Each iteration of the mean shift filter changes pixel values to be a weighted average of pixels in its neighborhood. Some new extensions to the mean shift filter are proposed to allow for better segmentation of nevi from the skin. The kernel, that describes how the pixels in its neighborhood will be averaged, is adaptive; the shape of the kernel is a function of the local histogram. After initial clustering, a simple merging of clusters is done. Finally, clusters that are local minima are found and analyzed to determine which clusters are nevi. When this algorithm was compared to an assessment by an expert dermatologist, it showed a sensitivity rate and diagnostic accuracy of over 95% on the test set, for nevi larger than 1.5mm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".