MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979343283 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2019.8861848

Skin Lesion Segmentation Based on Improved U-net

2019· article· en· W2979343283 on OpenAlexaff
Lina Liu, Lichao Mou, Xiao Xiang Zhu, Mrinal Mandal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceDeep learningSkin cancerAmbiguityTask (project management)Image segmentationMelanomaSkin lesionPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionCancerDermatologyMedicineEngineeringCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Melanoma is one of the most common and dangerous skin cancers, accounting for 75% of deaths associated with skin cancer. Detection of melanoma in early stages can significantly improve the survival rate. Automatic segmentation of melanoma is an important and essential step for accurate detection of melanoma. Many existing works based on traditional segmentation methods and deep learning methods have been proposed for high-resolution dermoscopy images. However, due to the intrinsic visual complexity and ambiguity among different skin conditions, automatic melanoma segmentation is still a challenging task for existing methods. Among these methods, the deep learning methods have obtained more attention recently due to its high performance by training an end-to-end framework, which needs no human interaction. U-net is a very popular deep learning model for medical image segmentation. In this paper, we propose an efficient skin lesion segmentation based on improved U-net model. Experiments conducted on the 2017 ISIC Challenge dataset towards melanoma detection shows that the proposed method can obtain state-of-the-art performance on skin lesion segmentation task.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207