Skin Lesion Segmentation Using Deep Learning with Auxiliary Task
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skin lesion segmentation is a primary step for skin lesion analysis, which can benefit the subsequent classification task. It is a challenging task since the boundaries of pigment regions may be fuzzy and the entire lesion may share a similar color. Prevalent deep learning methods for skin lesion segmentation make predictions by ensembling different convolutional neural networks (CNN), aggregating multi-scale information, or by multi-task learning framework. The main purpose of doing so is trying to make use of as much information as possible so as to make robust predictions. A multi-task learning framework has been proved to be beneficial for the skin lesion segmentation task, which is usually incorporated with the skin lesion classification task. However, multi-task learning requires extra labeling information which may not be available for the skin lesion images. In this paper, a novel CNN architecture using auxiliary information is proposed. Edge prediction, as an auxiliary task, is performed simultaneously with the segmentation task. A cross-connection layer module is proposed, where the intermediate feature maps of each task are fed into the subblocks of the other task which can implicitly guide the neural network to focus on the boundary region of the segmentation task. In addition, a multi-scale feature aggregation module is proposed, which makes use of features of different scales and enhances the performance of the proposed method. Experimental results show that the proposed method obtains a better performance compared with the state-of-the-art methods with a Jaccard Index (JA) of 79.46, Accuracy (ACC) of 94.32, SEN of 88.76 with only one integrated model, which can be learned in an end-to-end manner.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it