Multimodal skin lesion classification using deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have successfully been applied for skin lesion classification, previous studies have generally considered only a single clinical/macroscopic image and output a binary decision. In this work, we have presented a method which combines multiple imaging modalities together with patient metadata to improve the performance of automated skin lesion diagnosis. We evaluated our method on a binary classification task for comparison with previous studies as well as a five class classification task representative of a real-world clinical scenario. We showed that our multimodal classifier outperforms a baseline classifier that only uses a single macroscopic image in both binary melanoma detection (AUC 0.866 vs 0.784) and in multiclass classification (mAP 0.729 vs 0.598). In addition, we have quantitatively showed the automated diagnosis of skin lesions using dermatoscopic images obtains a higher performance when compared to using macroscopic images. We performed experiments on a new data set of 2917 cases where each case contains a dermatoscopic image, macroscopic image and patient metadata.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".