MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235038263 · doi:10.35940/ijeat.b4916.129219

Skin Cancer Diagnostic using Machine Learning Techniques - Shearlet Transform and Naïve Bayes Classifier

2019· article· en· W4235038263 on OpenAlexaff
S. Mohan Kumar, J. Ram Kumar, K. Gopalakrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShearletNaive Bayes classifierArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Classifier (UML)Bayes classifierComputer scienceBayes' theoremMelanoma diagnosisContextual image classificationMathematicsMelanomaSupport vector machineMedicineImage (mathematics)Bayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Development of abnormal cells in the skin is known as skin cancer or melanoma, which can spread other parts of the body. Melanoma rarely occurs in eye, mouth and intestines. In this study, the classification of melanoma using shearlet transform coefficients and naïve Bayes classifier is discussed. The melanoma images are decomposed by the shearlet transform. Then, from the shearlet coefficients, predefined number of (50, 75 and 100) coefficients are selected from the decomposed subbands. The selected subband coefficients are directly applied to the naïve Bayes classifier. Performance of skin cancer classification system is measured in terms of accuracy. Results show that a better classification accuracy of 90.5 % is achieved at 3rd level with 100 coefficients of shearlet transform and naïve Bayes classifier for skin image classification system.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.243
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 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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Engineering and Advanced TechnologySame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207