Skin lesion segmentation: U-Nets versus clustering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many automatic skin lesion diagnosis systems use segmentation as a preprocessing step to diagnose skin conditions because skin lesion shape, border irregularity, and size can influence the likelihood of malignancy. This paper presents, examines and compares two different approaches to skin lesion segmentation. The first approach uses U-Nets and introduces a histogram equalization based preprocessing step. The second approach is a C-Means clustering based approach that is much simpler to implement and faster to execute. The Jaccard Index between the algorithm output and hand segmented images by dermatologists is used to evaluate the proposed algorithms. While many recently proposed deep neural networks to segment skin lesions require a significant amount of computational power for training (i.e., computer with GPUs), the main objective of this paper is to present methods that can be used with only a CPU. This severely limits, for example, the number of training instances that can be presented to the U-Net. Comparing the two proposed algorithms, U-Nets achieved a significantly higher Jaccard Index compared to the clustering approach. Moreover, using the histogram equalization for preprocessing step significantly improved the U-Net segmentation results.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".