Illumination-based Transformations Improve Skin Lesion Segmentation in Dermoscopic Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The semantic segmentation of skin lesions is an important and common initial task in the computer aided diagnosis of dermoscopic images. Although deep learning-based approaches have considerably improved the segmentation accuracy, there is still room for improvement by addressing the major challenges, such as variations in lesion shape, size, color and varying levels of contrast. In this work, we propose the first deep semantic segmentation framework for dermoscopic images which incorporates, along with the original RGB images, information extracted using the physics of skin illumination and imaging. In particular, we incorporate information from specific color bands, illumination invariant grayscale images, and shading-attenuated images. We evaluate our method on three datasets: the ISBI ISIC 2017 Skin Lesion Segmentation Challenge dataset, the DermoFit Image Library, and the PH2 dataset and observe improvements of 12.02%, 4.30%, and 8.86% respectively in the mean Jaccard index over a baseline model trained only with RGB images.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
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".