MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205895239 · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-03889-2

DUNEScan: a web server for uncertainty estimation in skin cancer detection with deep neural networks

2022· article· en· W4205895239 on OpenAlexafffund
Bogdan Mazoure, Alexander Mazoure, Jocelyn Bédard, Vladimir Makarenkov

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec à MontréalMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesCompute Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkUploadDeep learningArtificial intelligenceSkin cancerMachine learningVariance (accounting)Artificial neural networkSoftwareWeb serverPattern recognition (psychology)Data miningCancerThe InternetWorld Wide WebMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent years have seen a steep rise in the number of skin cancer detection applications. While modern advances in deep learning made possible reaching new heights in terms of classification accuracy, no publicly available skin cancer detection software provide confidence estimates for these predictions. We present DUNEScan (Deep Uncertainty Estimation for Skin Cancer), a web server that performs an intuitive in-depth analysis of uncertainty in commonly used skin cancer classification models based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs). DUNEScan allows users to upload a skin lesion image, and quickly compares the mean and the variance estimates provided by a number of new and traditional CNN models. Moreover, our web server uses the Grad-CAM and UMAP algorithms to visualize the classification manifold for the user's input, hence providing crucial information about its closeness to skin lesion images from the popular ISIC database. DUNEScan is freely available at: https://www.dunescan.org .

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations39
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207