MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234298357 · doi:10.22214/ijraset.2019.4507

Survey on Skin Disease Detection using Convolutional Neural Network

2019· article· en· W4234298357 on OpenAlexaff
M. Kalaiarasi, Harsh Kumar, S. Patra, Manali Zingade, V. K. Joshi, Rohan Spare, Virendra Kumar, Narang Utpal, Simon Schäfer, Christian Luudwigs, Manish Kumar, Rajiv Kumar, Megha Tijare, Vinay Gaikwad, Priyank Gadre, Jyoti Gaikwad, Priyanka Wagh, S Rekha, G Srinivasa Murthy, Bijal Desai, Solomon Lugbara, Er Gindhi, Ansari Nausheen, Ansari Zoya, Shaikh Ruhin, Qusay Kanaan Kadhim, Mohammed G. Sarwar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skin diseases are very common in people's daily life. Each year, millions of people are affected by all kinds of skin disorders. Diagnosis of skin diseases sometimes requires a high-level of expertise due to the variety of their visual aspects. As human judgment are often subjective and hardly reproducible, to achieve a more objective and reliable diagnosis, a computer aided diagnostic system should be considered. In this project , we investigate the feasibility of constructing a universal skin disease diagnosis system using deep convolutional neural network (CNN). The key part of architecture is a Convolution Neural Network that is trained on a skin disease image database. The dataset is obtained from skin disease database available openly HAM10000 dataset. Seven classes of diseases are predicted. It uses softmax layer of CNN for disease prediction. Our project can achieve as high as 90% accuracy. The accuracy can be further improved if more training images are used.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering TechnologySame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207