The Effects of Image Pre- and Post-Processing, Wavelet Decomposition, and Local Binary Patterns on U-Nets for Skin Lesion Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skin cancer is a widespread, global, and potentially deadly disease, which over the last three decades has afflicted more lives in the USA than all other forms of cancer combined. There have been a lot of promising recent works utilizing deep network architectures, such as FCNs, U-Nets, and ResNets, for developing automated skin lesion segmentation. This paper investigates various pre- and post-processing techniques for improving the performance of U-Nets as measured by the Jaccard Index. The dataset provided as part of the “2017 ISBI Challenges on Skin Lesion Analysis Towards Melanoma Detection” was used for this evaluation and the performance of the finalist competitors was the standard for comparison. The pre-processing techniques employed in the proposed system included contrast enhancement, artifact removal, and vignette correction. More advanced image transformations, such as local binary patterns and wavelet decomposition, were also employed to augment the raw grayscale images used as network input features. While the performance of the proposed system fell short of the winners of the challenge, it was determined that using wavelet decomposition as an early transformation step improved the overall performance of the system over pre- and post-processing steps alone.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".