Illumination correction in dermatological photographs using multi-stage illumination modeling for skin lesion analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel algorithm for correcting illumination variation in dermatological photographs via a multi-stage modeling of the underlying illumination is proposed for the purpose of skin lesion analysis. First, an initial illumination estimate is obtained via a non-parametric modeling strategy based on Monte Carlo sampling. Next, a subset of pixels from the non-parametric estimate is used to determine a parametric estimate of the illumination based on a quadratic surface model. Using the parametric illumination estimate, the reflectance map is obtained and used to correct the photograph. The photographs corrected using the proposed algorithm are compared to uncorrected photographs and to a state-of-the-art correction algorithm. Qualitatively, a visual comparison is performed, while quantitatively, the coefficient of variation of skin pixel intensities is calculated and the precision-recall curve for segmentation of skin lesions is graphed. Results show that the proposed algorithm has a lower coefficient of variation and an improved precision-recall curve.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".