Predictive power of irregular border shapes for malignant melanomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The Irregularity Index is a measure of border irregularity from pigmented skin lesion images. The measure attempts to quantify the degree of irregularity of the structural indentations and protrusions along a lesion border. A carefully designed study has shown that the parameters derived from the Irregularity Index were highly correlated with expert dermatologists' notion of border shape. This paper investigates the predictive power of these parameters on a set of data with known histological diagnosis. METHODS: A set of 188 pigmented skin lesions (30 malignant melanomas and 158 benign lesions) was selected for the study. Their images were segmented and their border shapes were analysed by the Irregularity Index, producing four border irregularity parameters. The predictive power of these four parameters was estimated by a series of statistical tests. RESULTS: The mean values of the four border irregularity parameters were significantly different between the melanoma group and the benign lesion group. When using the four parameters to predict its disease status, the leave-one-out classification rate was 82.4%, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.77. A malignant melanoma was 8.9 times more likely to have an irregular border than a benign lesion. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed that border irregularity is an important clinical feature for the diagnosis of malignant melanoma. It also indicates that the computer-derived measures based on the Irregularity Index capture to certain extent the kind of irregularity which is exhibited by melanomas.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".