Learning to Detect Blue–White Structures in Dermoscopy Images With Weak Supervision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a novel approach to identify one of the most significant dermoscopic criteria in the diagnosis of cutaneous Melanoma: the blue-white structure (BWS). In this paper, we achieve this goal in a multiple instance learning (MIL) framework using only image-level labels indicating whether the feature is present or not. To this aim, each image is represented as a bag of (nonoverlapping) regions, where each region may or may not be identified as an instance of BWS. A probabilistic graphical model is trained (in MIL fashion) to predict the bag (image) labels. As output, we predict the classification label for the image (i.e., the presence or absence of BWS in each image) and we also localize the feature in the image. Experiments are conducted on a challenging dataset with results outperforming state-of-the-art techniques, with BWS detection besting competing methods in terms of performance. This study provides an improvement on the scope of modeling for computerized image analysis of skin lesions. In particular, it propounds a framework for identification of dermoscopic local features from weakly labeled data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".