High-Level Intuitive Features (HLIFs) for Intuitive Skin Lesion Description
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A set of high-level intuitive features (HLIFs) is proposed to quantitatively describe melanoma in standard camera images. Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer. With rising incidence rates and subjectivity in current clinical detection methods, there is a need for melanoma decision support systems. Feature extraction is a critical step in melanoma decision support systems. Existing feature sets for analyzing standard camera images are comprised of low-level features, which exist in high-dimensional feature spaces and limit the system's ability to convey intuitive diagnostic rationale. The proposed HLIFs were designed to model the ABCD criteria commonly used by dermatologists such that each HLIF represents a human-observable characteristic. As such, intuitive diagnostic rationale can be conveyed to the user. Experimental results show that concatenating the proposed HLIFs with a full low-level feature set increased classification accuracy, and that HLIFs were able to separate the data better than low-level features with statistical significance. An example of a graphical interface for providing intuitive rationale is given.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".