Detection and Analysis of Irregular Streaks in Dermoscopic Images of Skin Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Irregular streaks are important clues for Melanoma (a potentially fatal form of skin cancer) diagnosis using dermoscopy images. This paper extends our previous algorithm to identify the absence or presence of streaks in a skin lesions, by further analyzing the appearance of detected streak lines, and performing a three-way classification for streaks, Absent, Regular, and Irregular, in a pigmented skin lesion. In addition, the directional pattern of detected lines is analyzed to extract their orientation features in order to detect the underlying pattern. The method uses a graphical representation to model the geometric pattern of valid streaks and the distribution and coverage of the structure. Using these proposed features of the valid streaks along with the color and texture features of the entire lesion, an accuracy of 76.1% and weighted average area under ROC curve (AUC) of 85% is achieved for classifying dermoscopy images into streaks Absent, Regular, or Irregular on 945 images compiled from atlases and the internet without any exclusion criteria. This challenging dataset is the largest validation dataset for streaks detection and classification published to date. The data set has also been applied to the two-class sub-problems of Absent/Present classification (accuracy of 78.3% with AUC of 83.2%) and to Regular/Irregular classification (accuracy 83.6% with AUC of 88.9%). When the method was tested on a cleaned subset of 300 images randomly selected from the 945 images, the AUC increased to 91.8%, 93.2% and 90.9% for the Absent/Regular/Irregular, Absent/Present, and Regular/Irregular problems, respectively.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".