Automated segmentation and analysis of the epidermis area in skin histopathological images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the diagnosis of skin melanoma by analyzing histopathological images, the segmentation of the epidermis area is an important step. This paper proposes a computer-aided technique for segmentation and analysis of the epidermis area in the whole slide skin histopathological images. Before the segmentation technique is employed, a monochromatic color channel that provides a good discriminant information between the epidermis and dermis areas is determined. In order to reduce the processing time and perform the analysis efficiently, we employ multi-resolution image analysis in the proposed segmentation technique. At first, a low resolution whole slide image is generated. We then segment the low resolution image using a global threshold method and shape analysis. Based on the segmented epidermis area, the layout of epidermis is determined and the high resolution image tiles of epidermis are generated for further manual or automated analysis. Experimental results on 16 different whole slide skin images show that the proposed technique provides a superior performance, about 92% sensitivity rate, 93% precision and 97% specificity rate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".